Jerico Matias Cruz v. State of Illinois

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 21, 2023*
Decided November 29, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1599
JERICO MATIAS CRUZ
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 20 C 07659
Jorge L. Alonso,
Judge.
* The defendant-appellee was not served with process and is not participating in
this appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the
appeal is frivolous. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 23-1599 Page 2
O R D E R
Jerico Matias Cruz appeals the dismissal of his employment discrimination
lawsuit challenging a testing requirement of the Illinois State Police. Because he does
not present any ground for reversal, we dismiss the appeal.
Cruz sued the State of Illinois after receiving a notification that his application for
an antiterrorism trainee position with the Illinois State Police required him to sit for an
exam. He alleged that the Department of Central Management Services, which is the
department in charge of the state’s hiring policies, discriminated against him based on
his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by not excusing him from the exam
although he had submitted his application before the requirement was in place.
After the district court dismissed his original complaint for failing to state a claim
against a proper defendant, Cruz submitted an amended complaint that continued to
name the State of Illinois as the only defendant in the caption. Upon screening the
complaint again, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court informed Cruz that either the
Department or the Illinois State Police, which Cruz mentioned in the body of his
amended complaint, could be the proper defendant, but the court would not select the
targeted entity for him. The court then dismissed the complaint without prejudice and
allowed Cruz 28 days to file a second amended complaint. The court warned Cruz that
if he failed to comply, it would dismiss the case.
The deadline for filing a second amended complaint came and went, and months
later, the court dismissed Cruz’s suit for failure to comply with its earlier order and lack
of prosecution. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 41(b). Cruz filed a motion to vacate, explaining that he
had been occupied with campaign operations for his bid for a seat in the United States
House of Representatives. The court denied the motion on the ground that Cruz’s lack
of diligence was not an exceptional circumstance that justified relief, see Bakery Mach. &
Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2009).
Cruz appeals, but he does not contend that the district court erred in dismissing
his suit based on noncompliance with its order or failure to prosecute; thus, he forfeits
any such argument. See Webster v. CDI Indiana, 917 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 2019).
Although we construe pro se filings liberally, the appellate brief must contain an
argument that addresses the district court’s rulings and provides reasons for reversal.
F ED. R. C IV. P. 28(a)(8)(A). See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).
Cruz does not give us any argument to consider, and so we dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-1599 Page 3
Cruz has a history of frivolous litigation that recently led the Executive
Committee of the Northern District of Illinois to impose a filing bar. See In re Cruz, No.
23-C-3115 (N.D. Ill. July 18, 2023). This is just one of the frivolous appeals Cruz has
brought in this court, and we previously advised him that appellants must present
arguments addressing the reasons they lost in the district court. See, e.g., Cruz v. Illinois,
No. 22-3182, 2023 WL 3172182 (7th Cir. 2023) reh’g denied, No. 22-3182, 2023 WL 3725196
(7th Cir. 2023). Cruz has not heeded our instruction or indicated that his frivolous
filings will cease. We thus revoke the leave previously granted to Cruz to litigate this
appeal in forma pauperis (that is, without prepaying the filing fee). See In re City of
Chicago, 500 F.3d 582, 583 (7th Cir. 2007); Campbell v. Clarke, 481 F.3d 967, 969–70 (7th
Cir. 2007); see also Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 726 (7th Cir. 2008). For all other
cases that Cruz has in this circuit or in its district courts, we likewise order him to pay
now whatever filing fees remain outstanding. See In re Chicago, 500 F.3d at 583. Finally,
to prevent future abuse from Cruz and regardless of payments that Cruz may make to
comply with this order, we revoke his privilege of litigating new suits or appeals in
forma pauperis in any court of this circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Martin v. District of
Columbia Ct. of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992)). See also, e.g., Gakuba v. Ill. Prisoner Rev. Bd., 143
S. Ct. 641 (2023); Gakuba v. Dodd, 143 S. Ct. 629 (2023) (revoking in forma pauperis status
for repeated abuse). We instruct the clerk of this court and the clerks of the district
courts of this circuit not to docket any new suits or appeals from Cruz in noncriminal
matters unless he pays the docketing fee first. See Gakuba, 143 S. Ct. at 641.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --