George Wortham v. Chris Hansen Lab Incorporated, No. 12-3360 (7th Cir. 2013)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 November 26, 2013* Decided November 26, 2013 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 12-3360 GEORGE L. WORTHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHR. HANSEN, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 12-C-0914 Charles N. Clevert, Jr., Judge. ORDER George Wortham filed a complaint naming as defendant Chr. Hansen, Inc. (the U.S. subsidiary of a Danish producer of food additives). Typical of his complaint is Wortham s allegation that * The appellee was not served with process in the district court and is not participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant s brief and the record, we have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2). No. 12-3360 Page 2 Hansen Lab inc failure to their decisions to grants entitlement rights to MR Wortham the redenied by hansen lab inc don t let it be through stripes bible speaks. The complaint refers to medical records but does not explain what was done with them or how they are connected to a legal claim. Wortham attached what appear to be cutand-paste excerpts of filings from other lawsuits with no discernable connection to this one; the copied passages concern writs of habeas corpus, appellate procedure, Social Security benefits, and California evidentiary law. The district court could not decipher a cognizable claim and dismissed Wortham s suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (This is not the first time Wortham has filed a lawsuit that confounded a federal court. See Wortham v. Chr. Hansen Lab, Inc., 48 F.3d 1222 (7th Cir. 1995) (unpublished disposition); Wortham v. Chris Hansen Lab, Inc., No. 3-10-CV-2079-P, 2010 WL 4924764 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2010).) Wortham s appellate brief makes no more sense than his complaint. We could dismiss the appeal for noncompliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9), see Correa v. White, 518 F.3d 516, 517 18 (7th Cir. 2008); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 46 (7th Cir. 2001), but we easily can see that the district court s disposition is correct. Wortham does not allege diversity of citizenship or a controversy involving more than $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and frivolous suits do not engage the federalquestion jurisdiction, id. § 1331. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536 38 (1974); El v. AmeriCredit Fin. Servs. Inc., 710 F.3d 748, 751 (7th Cir. 2013). Filings such as Wortham s that are incoherent or lack a legal basis are frivolous. Georgakis v. Ill. State Univ., 722 F.3d 1075, 1078 (7th Cir. 2013); Buntrock v. SEC, 347 F.3d 995, 997 (7th Cir. 2003). AFFIRMED.
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.
