Hoskins v. Dart
Decision Date | 22 December 2010 |
Docket Number | 10–1629,Nos. 10–1619,10–1640,10–1643.,10–1627,s. 10–1619 |
Parties | Joshua HOSKINS, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Thomas DART, et al., Defendants–Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Joshua Hoskins (submitted), Lawrence Correctional Center, Sumner, IL, pro se.Before BAUER, TINDER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.PER CURIAM.
Joshua Hoskins, a prisoner in Illinois, brought five suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, and various prison officers. The district court dismissed Hoskins' suits after concluding that he fraudulently misrepresented his litigation history to the court. We affirm.
Hoskins' five complaints allege that the officers used excessive physical force against him and others, left him naked overnight in a cold, drafty cell during the winter, denied him prescribed psychiatric medication, and refused to process prisoner grievances adequately. Hoskins completed his five complaints on court-issued forms. Each form ordered him to list “ALL lawsuits” that he had filed or risk dismissal of his case. The warning for violating the order appears in bold, capitalized font: “YOU WILL NOT BE EXCUSED FROM FILLING OUT THIS SECTION COMPLETELY, AND FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF YOUR CASE.” A year earlier, Hoskins had filed three federal civil rights cases on similar claims, all of which he was still litigating, but Hoskins did not list them on any of the five complaints. Instead, he prominently made large X's through the litigation-history portion of his complaints. He then certified the accuracy of his complaints by signing each of them below a warning cautioning him that if his certification was incorrect, he “may be subject to sanctions by the court.”
The district court screened the cases and discovered that Hoskins had omitted his litigation history. The district court found that the omissions were fraudulent and then dismissed each case with prejudice. The court reasoned that Hoskins made material and false omissions because he failed to identify the three cases that he was currently litigating before the court. The court noted that Hoskins certified the complaints' accuracy even though they were incorrect. Because Hoskins had recently filed those three pending cases and was still actively litigating them, the court concluded that the omissions were not accidental, so dismissal with prejudice was an appropriate sanction. Hoskins appeals.
We review the district court's finding of fraud for clear error and its dismissal of Hoskins' claims with prejudice for abuse of discretion. See Thomas v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305, 307–08 (7th Cir.2002).
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Hoskins' omissions were both material and intentional, and thus fraudulent. Hoskins does not deny that he filed and was still actively litigating the three cases. Nor does he deny that his signed complaints contained the highlighted instructions ordering him to list those lawsuits. Hoskins insists, instead, that his omission was innocent. He claims that he trusted another inmate who helped him on a previous case and who told him that he could ignore the portion of the complaint form requiring that he list his litigation history. But he signed the complaints, and the signature page (which he does not deny reading) advised him that his signature certified the truth of the entire complaint, including the litigation-history section that Hoskins crossed out. The court was within its rights in rejecting his claim of innocence and finding fraud. See generally Dugan v. R.J. Corman R.R. Co., 344 F.3d 662, 667 (7th Cir.2003) ( ).
Having found fraud, the district court had the discretion to dismiss Hoskins' cases as a sanction. In general, courts may impose appropriate sanctions, including dismissal or default, against litigants who violate discovery rules and other rules and orders designed to enable judges to control their dockets and manage the flow of litigation. See, e.g., Wickens v. Shell Oil Co., 620 F.3d 747, 759 (7th Cir.2010) ( ); In re Thomas Consolidated Industries, Inc., 456 F.3d 719, 724–25 (7th Cir.2006) ( ); Newman v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Auth., 962 F.2d 589, 591 (7th Cir.1992) ( ); Hindmon v. National–Ben Franklin Life Ins. Corp., 677 F.2d 617, 618 (7th Cir.1982) ( ). Sanctions may include dismissing complaints containing fraudulent information. See Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858–59 (7th Cir.1999) ( ); see also Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725 (7th Cir.2008) ( ); Taylor v. Chicago Police Dept., 2008 WL 2477694, at *4 (N.D.Ill. June 18, 2008) (Dow, J.) (, )aff'd, Taylor v. City of Chicago, 334 Fed.Appx. 760 (7th Cir.2009). Such sanctions are permissible in a case like this because a district court relies on a party's description of his litigation history to manage its docket. Disclosure of a prisoner's litigation history enables a court to adhere to the three-strike requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Sloan, 181 F.3d at 858–59 ( ).
We have considered cases with similar facts before, albeit in non-precedential decisions and without having to decide whether a fraudulent litigation history justified the sanction of dismissal with prejudice. See, e.g., Taylor v. City of Chicago, 334 Fed.Appx. at 761 ( ); Heard v. Blagojevich, 216 Fed.Appx. 568, 571 (7th Cir.2007) ( ). Other circuits have decided that a fraudulent litigation history warrants dismissal, but again in non-precedential decisions....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ellison v. Quinn
...to immediate dismissal on that basis alone—at least relative to his petition for a writ of mandamus. See generally Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir. 2011); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-859 (7th Cir. 1999).3. Pending Mot......
-
Isby v. Brown
...of their case as a sanction for misconduct. See, e.g. , Gay v. Chandra , 682 F.3d 590, 595–96 (7th Cir. 2012) ; Hoskins v. Dart , 633 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir. 2011) ; Ammons v. Gerlinger , 547 F.3d 724, 725 (7th Cir. 2008).Isby does not dispute that he was aware of his three strikes when he ......
- EState Davis v. Bank
-
Williams v. Armstrong, Case No. 16-cv-1296-SMY
...litigation history, the Court may appropriately dismiss the action for providing fraudulent information to the Court. Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir. 2011) (dismissal appropriate where Court-issued complaint form clearly warned plaintiff that failure to provide litigation histo......