Fard Mohammed v. Wisconsin Insurance Security F, et al, No. 10-2911 (7th Cir. 2011)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 March 8, 2011* Decided March 11, 2011 Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge No. 10 2911 FARD MOHAMMED Plaintiff Appellant, v. WISCONSIN INSURANCE SECURITY FUND, et al., Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 10 CV 551 J. P. Stadtmueller, Judge. O R D E R Fard Mohammed, formerly a hall monitor employed by the Racine Unified School District, sued the district, the Wisconsin Insurance Security Fund (WISF), and others, alleging that school officials discriminated against him based on his Islamic faith when they * The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not participating in this appeal. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant s brief and the record. After examining these materials, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 10 2911 Page 2 required him to remove his religious head cover and pilgrimage ring. However, Mohammed had already litigated unsuccessfully the same claim in state court, first before the WISF (an administrative body), and later the Dane County Circuit Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte, concluding that it was legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2). The court explained that Mohammed s claim had already been resolved on the merits by the WISF and the Wisconsin state courts, and that the doctrine of issue preclusion barred him from relitigating issues that were previously adjudicated. On appeal Mohammed restates the grievances set forth in his complaint, but nowhere does he develop any meaningful legal argument, with appropriate references to the record, as to why the district court erred in dismissing his complaint. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Although we construe a pro se litigant s brief liberally, we cannot construct arguments when there are none. Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 46 (7th Cir. 2001); see Fednav. Int l Ltd. v. Continental Ins. Co., 624 F.3d 834, 842 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, 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.
