Eloise K. Hahn v. Bank of America

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• Decided: December 7, 2018
• Docket: 17-3563
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 7, 2018* Decided December 7, 2018

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

No. 17-3563

ELOISE K. HAHN, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 17 C 5434 BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Jorge L. Alonso, Judge.

ORDER

Eloise Hahn sued Bank of America, Stifel Financial Corporation, and Herman Marino for violating the terms of an irrevocable trust, stealing her identity, and pilfering her tax refunds. The district court dismissed Hahn’s complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that it did not establish a basis for jurisdiction, did not identify particular claims against particular defendants, and did not state how Hahn was entitled to relief.

*The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not participating in this appeal. We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A). No. 17-3563 Page 2

When Hahn did not cure those problems in her amended complaint, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. On appeal, Hahn repeats her allegations—which are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to follow—from her complaint, but she has neither engaged with the district court’s reasoning nor cited any legal authority. We construe pro se filings liberally, Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001), but even pro se litigants must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8), see Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545– 46, which requires that a brief contain a cogent argument and citations to authority. Because Hahn has not presented an argument, and because we see no obvious errors, the appeal is DISMISSED.