Sylvester Thomas v. J. Van Hollen, et al, No. 10-3144 (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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 October 7, 2010 Decided October 12, 2010 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK , Chief Judge RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 10-3144 SYLVESTER THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 10-C-314 William C. Griesbach, Judge. v. J.B. VAN HOLLEN, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Order This appeal is functionally identical to one we resolved less than three months ago. Thomas v. Van Hollen, No. 10-2100 (7th Cir. July 23, 2010) (non-precedential disposition). After receiving our order, Thomas filed in the district court a Motion to Amend and Re-Allege . The motion is not based on any of the federal rules, though Thomas does refer to a mysterious Common Law Procedure Act of 1852 15+16 Vict ch. 76ยง64 . The district court denied the motion, observing that apart from procedural obstacles it suffered from the same flaw as the original complaint: although Thomas asserts that he was attacked by another inmate, he does not allege the sort of This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). No. 10-3144 Page 2 knowledge by the guards that would support liability. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). Thomas has filed another appeal. Our prior decision relied on Farmer; Thomas continues to ignore that decision. His latest appellate brief is no better than his last. We told Thomas in July that his position was frivolous and that, if he did not desist, he would be ordered to pay sanctions and, if he did not pay, he would be subject to a filing bar under Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995). We concluded: If Thomas wants to retain the right to pursue serious grievances, he must immediately desist from all frivolous litigation, and in particular he must not repeat contentions that the judiciary has already told him are unwarranted. Thomas has done precisely what we told him he must not do: Repeat arguments already held to be frivolous. His current brief does not mention our advice or attempt to deal with any of the substantive problems identified in our order. It has become clear that Thomas is incorrigible. We therefore give Thomas 14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $2,500 for his persistently frivolous litigation. AFFIRMED; ORDER TO SHOW C AUSE ENTERED.
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.
