Neser Em Neheh Ali v. CHICAGO BANCORP, INC., et. al

* The defendants were not served with process in district court and are not
participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have
concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the
appellant’s brief and the record. See FED R. A PP P. 34(a)(2).
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 23, 2009 *
Decided June 23, 2009
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
No. 09‐1570
NESER EM NEHEH ALI,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
CHICAGO BANCORP, INC., et. al,
Defendants‐Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 08 C 6713
Matthew F. Kennelly,
Judge.
O R D E R
Neser Em Neheh Ali sued Bancorp and other defendants for what appear to be
commercial and contractual claims. His complaint is incoherent and contains no
discernable claims, though Ali labels himself and the defendants as “vessels” in an attempt
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 09‐1570 Page 2
to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of federal court. The district court dismissed the case
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Ali’s appellate brief is similarly incomprehensible. A litigant in this court must
“supply an argument consisting of more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations
to supporting authority.” FED. R. A PP. P. 28(a)(9)(A); see Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 691
(7th Cir. 2008). And although we construe pro se filings liberally, even litigants proceeding
without the benefit of counsel must articulate some reason for disturbing the district court’s
judgment. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Ali does not challenge
the district court’s reasoning. In fact, it is impossible to discern any argument at all.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --