Cedric Dupree v. Marcus Hardy
859 F.3d 458
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Dupree sued Illinois prison staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for prolonged incarceration; case delayed as Dupree stopped communicating with court and recruited counsel; court appointed Sweeney, who reported no contact from Dupree.
- Judge Valdez recommended dismissal for want of prosecution after Dupree failed to appear at status hearings; Dupree later claimed incarceration and sought reinstatement, which was denied.
- Schneider repeatedly sought disqualification of defendants’ counsel and failed to prepare for trial; he ignored orders and deadlines, leading the district court to continue trial dates and eventually dismiss the case with prejudice.
- District court recruited counsel for Schneider; Schneider still failed to cooperate; final pretrial conference yielded dismissal for failure to prosecute after warning.
- Court affirmations emphasize limits of pro bono representation and the need for plaintiffs to communicate, attend hearings, and participate in discovery; dismissals are within trial judges’ discretion when failures are repeated and willful.
- The proceedings note that § 1915(e)(1) authorizes appointment of counsel but does not create a right to counsel in civil cases; volunteers’ time is limited and should not be squandered on non-cooperating plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dupree’s dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper | Dupree | District court proper to dismiss for noncompliance | Affirmed; dismissal proper |
| Whether Schneider’s dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper | Schneider | District court proper to dismiss for noncompliance | Affirmed; dismissal proper |
| Whether the Rule 60(b) reconsideration ruling against Dupree is reviewable | Dupree | No meaningful review without transcript | Unreviewable on record due to missing transcript |
| Whether Schneider has standing to challenge defense counsel’s disqualification | Schneider | No standing to challenge counsel | Affirmed; Schneider lacks standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc; factors for recruiting counsel; no right to civil counsel; limited resource)
- Kasalo v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., 656 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2011) (district judges’ discretion in dismissals for noncooperation)
- Secrease v. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co., 800 F.3d 397 (7th Cir. 2015) (financial sanctions unlikely effective in forma pauperis cases)
- Rivera v. Drake, 767 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2014) (court may dismiss for failure to participate in discovery and hearings)
- McInnis v. Duncan, 697 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2012) (dismissal appropriate for repeated failures to appear and lack of credibility)
- Fischer v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 446 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2006) (sanctions for noncompliance and dismissal standards)
- Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 1993) (dismissal for failure to prosecute; warning and noncompliance)