Lois Yankah v. DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, and DUPAGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 17, 2021*
Decided December 23, 2021
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 21-1520
LOIS YANKAH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, and DUPAGE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
No. 19-cv-1936
Jorge L. Alonso, Judge.
Order
The last time this case was here, we held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in rejecting a post-judgment motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We added
* This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). We
have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the briefs and record adequately
present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the court. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 21-1520 Page 2
that the only open issue concerned the propriety of that decision, and that we could not
consider the merits of Yankah’s claim because she had not filed a timely appeal. Yankah
v. DuPage County, No. 20-1618 (7th Cir. Dec. 8, 2020) (nonprecedential disposition).
Yankah then filed another Rule 60(b) motion in the district court. Instead of
attempting to establish any of the criteria that justifies relief under that Rule, Yankah
simply reargued the merits of her position. The district court summarily rejected the
motion, and Yankah appealed.
Just as in her last appeal, Yankah has ignored the procedural posture of the case
and argued as if she were entitled to plenary review of the district court’s initial
decision. That is not so, for reasons explained in our first order. Repeating a set of
arguments that we have rejected—and, to an extent, do not even pertain to her case (as
our prior order mentioned)—does not assist her position.
The district judge warned Yankah that continuing refusal to accept the adverse
outcome of this suit would lead to sanctions. She must take that warning seriously,
because an ongoing course of frivolous motions could lead to an order that directs
Yankah to pay a substantial monetary penalty and closes the courthouse doors until she
complies. See Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995).

-- 2 of 2 --