Agwu Nwoke v. Village of Bolingbrook , 355 F. App'x 59 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                   NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 8, 2009*
    Decided December 10, 2009
    Before
    FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
    RICHARD D. C UDAHY, Circuit Judge
    ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
    No. 09-2494                                                        Appeal from the United
    States District Court for the
    AGWU NWOKE,                                                        Northern District of Illinois,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                                          Eastern Division.
    v.                                                 No. 09 C 2764
    VILLAGE OF BOLINGBROOK, ILLINOIS,                                  Charles P. Kocoras, Judge.
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Order
    After receiving a ticket for running a red light, Agwu Nwoke filed this suit in federal
    court under 
    42 U.S.C. §1983
    . He accuses the Village of Bolingbrook of malicious prose-
    cution on the theory that its police force issues tickets to raise revenue rather than to
    enforce the traffic laws.
    The district court dismissed the suit in a curt order that does not provide reasons,
    and thus violates Circuit Rule 50. The suit may have been dismissed for failure to prose-
    cute (Nwoke failed to appear at a scheduled hearing) or on the merits; if the latter, the
    district court’s reasons for thinking the complaint defective were not stated. But there
    would be no point to a remand, because the complaint is incurably deficient. There is no
    federal-law claim for malicious prosecution, if state law provides remedies for that tort
    (as Illinois does). See Newsome v. McCabe, 
    256 F.3d 747
     (7th Cir. 2001). Other potential
    problems with Nwoke’s theory need not be explored.
    AFFIRMED
    * After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See
    Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-2494

Citation Numbers: 355 F. App'x 59

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/10/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023