Judy Powell v. Webster Smith, No. 15-2009 (7th Cir. 2015)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 December 22, 2015* Decided December 22, 2015 Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge No. 15 2009 JUDY ANN POWELL, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WEBSTER SMITH, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:15 cv 00533 WTL DML William T. Lawrence, Judge. O R D E R Judy Powell sued Webster Smith, the director of the Indianapolis District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, referring obliquely to the EEOC, executive orders, the United States Constitution, and the International Court of Justice. Powell attached to the complaint medical records, an op ed written by former President Jimmy Carter, correspondence with the EEOC, and other documents. The district court could not discern a plausible federal claim and dismissed the complaint as frivolous and * After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 15 2009 Page 2 for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court invited Powell to clarify her allegations, but her response failed to cure the identified deficiencies, so the court entered judgment against her. Powell’s brief on appeal does not mention the district court’s dismissal of her complaint, much less offer any coherent argument regarding that dismissal. The appeal is therefore dismissed for failing to raise any cognizable argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). Two brief notes. First, the district court determined that Powell’s suit was frivolous, so it should have certified that Powell’s appeal was taken in bad faith and revoked the order authorizing Powell to proceed IFP on appeal. See Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 651 (7th Cir. 2000); Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026–27 (7th Cir. 2000). Second, Powell has previously filed frivolous lawsuits. See Powell v. City, No. 1:14 cv 00810 RLY DML (S.D. Ind. May 23, 2014), summarily aff’d, No. 14 2363 (7th Cir. 2014); Powell v. Greystone Corp. Realty, No. 1:12 cv 01070 WTL DKL (S.D. Ind. June 19, 2013); Powell v. State of Indiana, No. 1:12 cv 01498 TWP DKL (S.D. Ind. Jan. 24, 2013), appeal dismissed, No. 13 1429 (7th Cir. 2013); Powell v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 1:12 cv 00452 TWP DML (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2012), summarily aff’d, No. 12 2488 (7th Cir. 2012). If Powell continues to file frivolous lawsuits, she risks monetary fines and a possible bar forbidding her from filing any further litigation in any federal court within this circuit. See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (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.
