Gerald Dix v. Unknown TSA Agent #1, et al
Filing
Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Because Dix has filed two frivolous appeals within the last few months, we warn him that further frivolous appeals may result in sanctions. See Support Sys. Int l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995). [Note: Order issued By the Court.] [6632568-1] [6632568] [14-3015]
Case: 14-3015
Document: 12
Filed: 01/07/2015
Pages: 2
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 January 6, 2015*
Decided January 7, 2015
By the Court
No. 14‐3015
GERALD DIX,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN TSA AGENT #1, et al.,
Defendants‐Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 14 C 6091
Charles P. Kocoras,
Judge.
O R D E R
In a 50‐page complaint Gerald Dix purported to bring a class action on behalf of
all airline passengers who (since September 11, 2001) flew on, or were dissuaded from
flying on, commercial airlines because of the actions of the defendants (a scattered
collection of government employees, cities, and private entities). His claims assert
violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). He alleges, for example, a vast, nationwide conspiracy to rig the
security equipment used at airports to screen passengers so that the equipment falsely
detects a forbidden object and gives federal agents an opportunity to grope passengers.
He also asserts that the Department of Justice and FBI have conspired to enable terrorists
* 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)(C).
Case: 14-3015
Document: 12
Filed: 01/07/2015
Pages: 2
No. 14‐3015
Page 2
to kill Americans. He uses racist, homophobic, anti‐Semitic, and other offensive
language to inflame his allegations. The district court characterized the complaint as
frivolous and dismissed Dix’s lawsuit.
Dix appealed the dismissal of a similar frivolous suit just months ago. In that
earlier lawsuit, Dix sued on behalf of a putative class of Metra commuters during the
NATO Summit in Chicago, as well all persons who flew on, or were dissuaded from
flying on, commercial airplanes since September 11, 2001. Invoking his trademark
offensive language, and just as he does in the current suit, he accused defendants of
(among other things) supporting jihadist attacks against America. We summarily
affirmed the district court’s dismissal. Dix v. Sullivan, No. 14‐2632 (7th Cir. Dec. 8, 2014).
On appeal in this case Dix largely reiterates his gripes with the defendants, but he
develops no reasoned basis for disturbing the district court’s ruling that his allegations
are frivolous. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A). The complaint indeed reflects paranoid and
delusional fears and is frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327‐28 (1989)
(district courts may dismiss fantastic and delusional allegations). Thus we AFFIRM the
judgment of the district court. Because Dix has filed two frivolous appeals within the
last few months, we warn him that further frivolous appeals may result in sanctions.
See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?