Yousif Pira v. Stuart Chanen, et al, No. 10-1512 (7th Cir. 2010)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 August 25, 2010* Decided August 26, 2010 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge No. 10 1512 YOUSIF Y. PIRA, Plaintiff Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 07 C 2037 STUART CHANEN, et al., Defendants Appellees. Joan B. Gottschall, Judge. O R D E R Yousif Pira pleaded guilty to fraud charges and then brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging an unlawful conspiracy among his defense counsel, the prosecutor, and numerous government agents who had been involved in the investigation of his conduct, see United States v. Pira, 535 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008). The * After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A). No. 10 1512 Page 2 district court dismissed certain of Pira s claims as time barred and others for failure to state a claim, and later denied Pira s postjudgment motion challenging the dismissal. On appeal Pira does not identify any specific error made by the district court or develop an argument supported by citations to legal authority or the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). His brief largely recounts how he worked as an informant and how the government attempted to force his continued cooperation, but we cannot discern any cogent argument. Although we will construe a pro se litigantʹs brief liberally, we will not attempt to craft arguments and perform legal research on the litigantʹs behalf when the litigant fails to do so. See Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545 46. The appeal is 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.
