NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 June 26, 2015*
Decided June 30, 2015
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
Nos. 14‐2017 & 14‐2695
ROBERT HOLLAND, Appeals from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
Hammond Division.
v.
No. 2:13cv179
LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT, et al., Theresa L. Springmann,
Defendants‐Appellees. Judge.
O R D E R
This appeal arises from a lawsuit that Robert Holland, an attorney suspended
from practice since 2009, brought in the Northern District of Indiana under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
* Appellant Robert Holland filed two notices of appeal after the judgment became
final. We dismiss appeal no. 14‐2695 as duplicative. The defendants were not served
with process in the district court and are not participating on appeal. After examining
the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that this case is appropriate for
summary disposition. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
Nos. 14‐2017 & 14‐2695 Page 2
§§ 1961–1968. The suit alleges that since 1998 an array of public and private actors have
conspired “to put him out of business.” The defendants, he says, cost him his job with
the Lake County, Indiana, prosecutor’s office, got him banned from the Lake County
government building, leveled false allegations that prompted the suspension of his law
license, unlawfully seized two real properties, and caused him to be falsely arrested and
imprisoned. This suit, though, is actually Holland’s fifth raising similar allegations.
See Holland v. CEO Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 2:14cv5 (N.D. Ind. 2014), aff’d,
No. 14‐3447 (7th Cir. Feb. 9, 2015); Holland v. City of Gary, No. 2:10‐CV‐454‐PRC (N.D.
Ind. 2013), aff’d, 533 F. App’x 661 (7th Cir. 2013); Holland v. City of Gary, No. 2:12‐CV‐62‐
TS (N.D. Ind. 2012), aff’d, 503 F. App’x 476 (7th Cir. 2013); Holland v. Lake County Mun.
Gov’t, No. 2:13‐CV‐180 PS (N.D. Ind. 2013). The district court initially dismissed the
complaint—totaling 467 pages—as inconsistent with the “short and plain statement”
requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). The district court then screened
Holland’s amended complaint and dismissed it, this time with prejudice. That
complaint, the court principally reasoned, fails to state a plausible claim for relief under
§ 1983 or RICO. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In fact, the court added, Holland’s
allegations are “fantastic” and “delusional,” and thus frivolous. See id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Holland protests the dismissal, insisting that his claims are plausible because, by
his count, “more than 50 Lake County public officials have been convicted of public
corruption” in the last decade. But Holland’s reliance on the past performance of
unidentified public officials to support his claim of personal abuse by other public
officials amounts to nothing more than speculation, which is insufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 556–57 (2007); Runnion ex. rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater
Chicago, 786 F.3d 510, 526 (7th Cir. 2015).
This appeal is frivolous. The district court has twice warned Holland that he
risks sanctions for continuing to file frivolous submissions. We add to the district
court’s warnings our own admonishment that future frivolous appeals also may result
in sanctions. See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment in appeal no. 14‐2017 and DISMISS
appeal no. 14‐2695.