CA7: Skeletal 4A claim doesn’t support relief

A caution about pleading in a § 1983 Fourth Amendment case: Plaintiff loses because of his skeletal claims in the complaint. “We express no opinion on whether the officers needed to handcuff Petersen, transport him in a police vehicle to a police station, and hand him over to an interview team to complete their stated mission of ascertaining Petersen’s identity, determining whether Petersen had a firearm, and investigating the situation without interference. See United States v. Bullock, 632 F.3d 1004, 1016-17 (7th Cir. 2011) (‘We have previously found that using handcuffs, placing suspects in police cars, drawing weapons, and other measures of force more traditionally associated with arrests may be proper during an investigatory detention, depending on the circumstances …. [But] in some situations, maintaining the status quo while obtaining more information … might be the most reasonable action to take.’ (internal quotation marks omitted)). We also express no opinion on whether, to get Erato’s name, check if he had a gun, and investigate the scene without his interference, the officers needed to handcuff him, take his belongings, transport him in a police vehicle to a police station, and interview him. And we express no opinion on whether Petersen or Erato’s detentions morphed into full-blown arrests. In the end, it does not matter whether the record supports these conclusions because the skeletal arguments on which Plaintiffs rely are insufficient to support their Fourth Amendment claims. United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir. 1991) (‘[P]erfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived ….’); United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (‘A skeletal “argument,” really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim.’ (citation omitted)).” Moderson v. City of Neenah, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11281 (7th Cir. May 9, 2025).*