Patricia Breckenridge v. Roger Goodell

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Per Curiam

Patricia Breckenridge v. Roger Goodell

Opinion

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED.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 April 1, 2022 * Decided April 8, 2022

Before

DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

No. 21-1618

PATRICIA ANN BRECKENRIDGE, Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellant, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 21 C 674 ROGER GOODELL, Defendant-Appellee. Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.

ORDER

Patricia Breckenridge says that she has a distant relative who played for the Cleveland Browns during the 2020–2021 season of the National Football League. Just days before the 2021 Super Bowl, she sued NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, raising

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 21-1618 Page 2

essentially two claims. First, she asserted that the Browns were robbed of their “rightful place” in the Super Bowl game, and she sought an injunction requiring Goodell to place the Browns in the Super Bowl. She also asserted that the NFL should do more to protect players, like her relative, from helmet-to helmet collisions that lead to concussions.

Breckenridge sought to file her complaint without prepaying filing fees, and so the district judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and then dismissed it as frivolous. The judge also alluded to Breckenridge’s reference to her relative’s football-related injuries and stated that Breckenridge lacked standing to sue for harm to someone else.

On appeal Breckenridge generally challenges the judge’s ruling but does not address his reasoning or make a cogent legal argument that could provide a basis for disturbing the judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Friend v. Valley View Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 365U, 789 F.3d 707, 711–12 (7th Cir. 2015). Regardless, her claim about the Browns’ defeat is legally frivolous, see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992), and she lacks standing to bring a claim on behalf of football players who have suffered injuries, see TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2203 (2021).

AFFIRMED

Reference

Status
Unpublished