Marcus Watson v. D. Sward, No. 23-2636 (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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED.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 May 10, 2024 * Decided May 10, 2024 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge No. 23-2636 MARCUS WATSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. SWARD, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. No. 23 C 50051 Iain D. Johnston, Judge. ORDER Marcus Watson, a federal prisoner, brought this lawsuit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that prison employees violated his constitutional rights. He asserts that one officer 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. 23-2636 Page 2 “forcefully slid his hand up the crack of [his] buttock area” during a search and others retaliated against him for filing a grievance by blocking its review. The district court screened his complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. It first construed Watson’s complaint as attempting to raise claims under the Eighth Amendment for excessive force and sexual harassment, and the First Amendment for penalizing him for his grievance. Then it reasoned that, under Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) (limiting when federal courts may expand Bivens beyond its original context) and Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022) (no Bivens action for a federal official’s alleged violation of First Amendment rights), Watson’s constitutional claims were not permissible under Bivens. Watson’s appellate brief does not contain a discernible argument for disturbing the district court’s decision. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8). He repeats the factual assertions contained in his complaint and cites cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to suggest that § 1983 authorizes this suit. But he has sued federal officers to recover for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Thus only the theory underlying Bivens—which in limited contexts authorizes suits against federal officers for violations of constitutional rights—not § 1983, is relevant to Watson’s claims about violations of his constitutional rights. See Dist. of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 424–25 (1973). Yet he fails to address, let alone attempt to refute, the district court’s conclusion that his claims arise under the Eighth and First Amendments in a context for which Bivens does not authorize a federal suit. And he has not developed an argument that a federal statute, such as the Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 30301–30309, authorizes him to bring a private right of action. Although we generously construe pro se filings, we will not attempt to craft arguments and perform legal research on the litigant’s behalf when the litigant failed to do so; instead, we must dismiss an appeal that presents no meaningful argument. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). We conclude with the matter of strikes. As the district court told Watson, he incurred a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because his complaint was dismissed in its entirety for failure to state a claim. See Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005, 1012 (7th Cir. 2010). Because he has not presented a meaningful argument for relief on appeal, he has incurred a second “strike” for filing and pursuing this appeal. 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.
