Antoinette Sellers v. City of Chicago Division of Unemployment, No. 23-3190 (7th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED.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 February 16, 2024* Decided February 20, 2024 Before MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge No. 23-3190 ANTOINETTE C. SELLERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 23-cv-03750 CITY OF CHICAGO DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Nancy L. Maldonado, Judge. The Appellees were not served with process and are not participating in this appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A). * No. 23-3190 Page 2 ORDER Antoinette Sellers believes she was improperly denied unemployment benefits under the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Sellers first sued in state court but did not obtain relief. She later filed a complaint and then an amended complaint in federal court against various city and state entities (which do not appear to exist), asserting breach of contract and negligence in connection with her unpaid benefits. The district court screened both complaints, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and dismissed them without prejudice, explaining that (1) the court lacked jurisdiction to decide her claims to the extent they challenged the state-court decision or were based on state law; (2) she had not named any suable entities; and (3) she did not plead facts that could plausibly support her claims. Sellers again amended her complaint, which the court dismissed for the same reasons. The court then gave Sellers a final opportunity to amend her complaint once more, warning Sellers that her failure to do so by the court’s deadline would result in dismissal of her case. After Sellers missed the deadline, the court dismissed the case. Sellers has filed an appellate brief that does not engage the district court’s reasoning. The brief hardly engages the topics of this case at all; it primarily discusses healthcare insurance. Although we construe pro se briefs generously, an appellate brief must contain a discernible argument with citations to supporting authority. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). We close by reminding Sellers, consistent with our recent warning in Sellers v. Howlett, No. 23-2417, 2024 WL 399068, at *1 (7th Cir. Feb. 2, 2024), that further frivolous appeals may result in sanctions against her, including fines that, if unpaid, may result in a bar on filing papers in any court within this circuit. See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995). DISMISSED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
