King v. A & R Katz Management, Inc.

Seventh Circuit

King v. A & R Katz Management, Inc.

21 F. App'x 451

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedOctober 12, 2001

DocketNo. 01-1911

StatusPublished

This text of 21 F. App'x 451 (King v. A & R Katz Management, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

King v. A & R Katz Management, Inc., 21 F. App'x 451 (7th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Gwendolyn King filed this action pro se against her landlord, Sandburg Village Apartments in Galesburg, Illinois, and her apartment manager, Christine Peterson, alleging that she had been harassed and ultimately evicted because of her race in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). The district court dismissed King’s complaint, and King appeals.

King is a pro se litigant, and we construe pro se filings liberally. Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 535 n. 10 (7th Cir.1995). However, even pro se litigants are required to include legal argument and some supporting authority in their briefs. Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.2001); Mathis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir.1998) (per curiam); United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court, 73 F.3d 669, 673 (7th Cir.1995) (per curiam). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A) requires the appellant’s brief to contain the appellant’s “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” King’s brief does not set forth a comprehensible argument nor does it cite to authorities or the record, or propose a basis for concluding that the district court erred in dismissing her case. Because her brief fails to meet the basic requirements outlined in Rule 28(a)(9)(A), King’s appeal is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Gwendolyn King filed this action pro se against her landlord, Sandburg Village Apartments in Galesburg, Illinois, and her apartment manager, Christine Peterson, alleging that she had been harassed and ultimately evicted because of her race in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). The district court dismissed King’s complaint, and King appeals.

King is a pro se litigant, and we construe pro se filings liberally. Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 535 n. 10 (7th Cir.1995). However, even pro se litigants are required to include legal argument and some supporting authority in their briefs. Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.2001); Mathis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir.1998) (per curiam); United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court, 73 F.3d 669, 673 (7th Cir.1995) (per curiam). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A) requires the appellant’s brief to contain the appellant’s “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” King’s brief does not set forth a comprehensible argument nor does it cite to authorities or the record, or propose a basis for concluding that the district court erred in dismissing her case. Because her brief fails to meet the basic requirements outlined in Rule 28(a)(9)(A), King’s appeal is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 F. App'x 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-a-r-katz-management-inc-ca7-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack