Lois Yankah v. DuPage County, Illinois, No. 21-1520 (7th Cir. 2021)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 December 17, 2021* Decided December 23, 2021 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge No. 21-1520 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. LOIS YANKAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, and DUPAGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendants-Appellees. No. 19-cv-1936 Jorge L. Alonso, Judge. Order The last time this case was here, we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting a post-judgment motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We added This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). * No. 21-1520 Page 2 that the only open issue concerned the propriety of that decision, and that we could not consider the merits of Yankah’s claim because she had not filed a timely appeal. Yankah v. DuPage County, No. 20-1618 (7th Cir. Dec. 8, 2020) (nonprecedential disposition). Yankah then filed another Rule 60(b) motion in the district court. Instead of attempting to establish any of the criteria that justifies relief under that Rule, Yankah simply reargued the merits of her position. The district court summarily rejected the motion, and Yankah appealed. Just as in her last appeal, Yankah has ignored the procedural posture of the case and argued as if she were entitled to plenary review of the district court’s initial decision. That is not so, for reasons explained in our first order. Repeating a set of arguments that we have rejected—and, to an extent, do not even pertain to her case (as our prior order mentioned)—does not assist her position. The district judge warned Yankah that continuing refusal to accept the adverse outcome of this suit would lead to sanctions. She must take that warning seriously, because an ongoing course of frivolous motions could lead to an order that directs Yankah to pay a substantial monetary penalty and closes the courthouse doors until she complies. See Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995).
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.
