Notice: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) States Unpublished Orders Shall Not Be Cited or Used As Precedent Except to Support a Claim of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel or Law of the Case in Any Federal Court Within the Circuit.oscar Kellom, Sr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. City of Hammond, Indiana and Mario Chapa, Defendants-appellees, 81 F.3d 163 (7th Cir. 1996)
Annotate this CaseBefore CUMMINGS, BAUER and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The district court dismissed Oscar Kellom's suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). Although the Heck decision was the centerpiece of the district court's ruling, Kellom ignored the case until his reply brief. "A litigant wanting to challenge the core of the district court's holding must do so in its opening brief and not hold its fire until after the appellee has filed its only brief." Horn v. Transcon Lines, Inc., 7 F.3d 1305, 1308 (7th Cir. 1993). Kellom's argument comes too late. He has forfeited review of the judgment and order appealed. See Jones v. Phipps, 39 F.3d 158, 163 (7th Cir. 1994) (pro se litigants not entitled to a general dispensation from the rules of procedure).
AFFIRMED.
After preliminary examination of the briefs, the court notified the parties that it had tentatively concluded that argument would not be helpful to the court in this case. The notice provided that any party might file a "Statement as to Need for Oral Argument." See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Circuit Rule 34(f). No such statement having been filed, the appeal has been submitted on the briefs and record alone pursuant to Rule 34(f)
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.
