Norman Flick v. Hector Gonzales, No. 12-1909 (7th Cir. 2012)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 20, 2012* Decided August 20, 2012 Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 12 1909 NORMAN FLICK, Plaintiff Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. v. No. 1:08 cv 461 SEB TAB HECTOR M. GONZALES, et al., Defendants Appellees. Sarah Evans Barker, Judge. O R D E R Norman Flick appeals the district court s dismissal of his second amended complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleged that 24 defendants (among them attorneys, judges, detectives, business people, and a state prosecutor) colluded to steal his property. First the court dismissed the complaint against two Indiana state court judges on the alternative grounds of judicial immunity and failure to comply with the statute of * 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. 12 1909 Page 2 limitations. Later the court dismissed the complaint against the remaining defendants for failure to comply with federal notice pleading standards, see FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). On appeal Flick does not develop any legal argument challenging the dismissal of his action, and asserts only generally that [R]ule 8 has been sufficiently plead under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). We construe pro se filings liberally, but even a pro se brief must contain more than a general assertion of error. Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). A brief must contain contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies. FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9). 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.
