NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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, 2014*
Decided December 1, 2014
Before
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 14‐2315
Appeal from the
ALEXANDER A. FELS, United States District Court for the
Plaintiff‐Appellant, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 14 C 21
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES and STATE OF ILLINOIS, Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,
Defendants‐Appellees. Judge.
O R D E R
Alexander Fels appeals from the dismissal of his complaint alleging that the
Supreme Court of the United States and the State of Illinois violated his civil rights by
failing to permit him to recant two guilty pleas. Because Fels does not explain in his
appellate brief why he believes that the district court erred, we dismiss his appeal.
* The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are 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. 14‐2315 Page 2
After the district court dismissed his first complaint at screening for failure to
state a claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Fels filed a 95‐page amended complaint alleging
that he was coerced into pleading guilty to two felonies; that the Attorney General of
Illinois failed to investigate violations of his civil rights; and that in a previous case, the
Supreme Court wrongly denied his petition for certiorari. The district court dismissed
the amended complaint with prejudice, stating that it could not detect a short and plain
statement of relief, see FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2), and in any event, Fels no longer could
challenge his guilty pleas.
On appeal Fels merely restates the allegations made in his complaint. While we
construe pro se filings liberally, pro se litigants must nonetheless adhere to procedural
rules, Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008), including Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 28, which requires that the appellant’s brief contain an argument
that includes “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and
parts of the record.” FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); see Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544,
545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). Fels does not suggest in his brief how the district court erred in
dismissing his claims, nor does he cite any applicable legal authority or parts of the
record on which he relies.
DISMISSED.