Hoskins v. Dart
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1119
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hoskins, a pro se prisoner, filed five 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaints against Cook County Sheriff and prison officers alleging excessive force, cruel treatment, denied medications, and grievance denial.
- In all five complaints, he omitted his ongoing litigation history and instead highlighted the form’s history section with large Xs.
- The district court screened the cases, found omissions were material and fraudulent, and dismissed each case with prejudice.
- Hoskins had three other federal cases pending and actively litigating at the time, which he failed to disclose.
- The district court relied on the warnings on the complaint forms and found fraud justifies sanctions; the court did not require lesser sanctions first in this context.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion and that sanctions were appropriate as a discovery/records-management sanction and not a merits ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omissions were fraudulent | Hoskins argues omissions were innocent | Dart asserts omissions were material and intentional | Omissions were fraudulent; sanctioned as appropriate |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper sanction | Hoskins claims lesser sanctions sufficed | Court properly sanctioned with prejudice for fraud | Dismissal with prejudice affirmed as permissible sanction |
| Whether district court erred in equity of lesser sanctions | Hoskins cites Oliver v. Gramley as alternative | Court considered lesser sanctions but chose dismissal | Court did not abuse discretion; dismissal permitted given warnings and fraud |
Key Cases Cited
- Dugan v. R.J. Corman R.R. Co., 344 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2003) (no 'I didn't read it' defense to signed contracts; fraud on the court supported)
- Wickens v. Shell Oil Co., 620 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2010) (sanctions for failure to disclose under Rule 26(a)(1) can be appropriate)
- In re Thomas Consolidated Industries, Inc., 456 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal as discovery sanction)
- Newman v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Auth., 962 F.2d 589 (7th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal as discovery sanction)
- Hindmon v. National-Ben Franklin Life Ins. Corp., 677 F.2d 617 (7th Cir. 1982) (affirming dismissal and default as discovery sanction)
- Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 1999) (sanctions for deception about litigation status; dismissal)
- Taylor v. City of Chicago, 334 Fed.Appx. 760 (7th Cir. 2009) (fraudulent omission of litigation history; affirming decision on other grounds)
- Taylor v. City of Chicago, 334 Fed.Appx. 761 (7th Cir. 2009) (non-precedential; discusses fraudulent litigation history)
- Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 1999) (lesser sanctions considered before dismissal)
- Fischer v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 446 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2006) (upholding sanctions to manage litigation)
- Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 1993) (precedes sanctions management)