Natanael Rivera v. Michael Drake, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17173

Rivera, a prisoner, sued officer Michael Drake under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a sexual assault during a pat‑down on December 15, 2008.
Drake moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Rivera later produced an affidavit and testified he filed a written grievance on December 16, 2008.
District court found by clear and convincing evidence that Rivera’s affidavit and testimony claiming a December 2008 written grievance were false; prison records showed many grievances from Rivera but none documenting an immediate written complaint about the alleged assault.
The court concluded Rivera committed perjury, forfeited his claim, and dismissed the suit as a sanction; the court had earlier deemed the exhaustion defense waived but later dismissed on misconduct grounds.
This Court affirmed dismissal, explaining perjury imposed substantial costs and justified dismissal after considering lesser sanctions was impracticable given Rivera’s in forma pauperis status and the evidentiary posture.
The Court ordered the record sent to the U.S. Attorney for possible perjury prosecution and required Rivera to show cause why his in forma pauperis privileges and potential monetary sanctions should not be revoked.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rivera exhausted administrative remedies	Rivera: he filed a written grievance Dec. 16, 2008	Drake: no timely written grievance; exhaustion not met	Court did not decide exhaustion finally here because perjury warranted dismissal; earlier factual finding: Rivera’s written‑grievance claim was false
Whether perjury forfeits claim / justifies dismissal	Rivera: maintained he filed grievance; denial of misconduct	Drake: Rivera lied to avoid dismissal; perjury undermines §1997e(a) process	Court: perjury is severe misconduct; dismissal as sanction was within discretion and affirmed
Whether defendant waived exhaustion defense by not pressing it earlier	Rivera: argued Drake waived exhaustion defense by failing to protest earlier ruling	Drake: maintained exhaustion defense preserved or could be raised	Court: did not need to resolve waiver question because perjury independently supported dismissal
Whether lesser sanctions were adequate before dismissal	Rivera: dismissal is drastic; lesser sanctions should be used	Drake: dismissal appropriate due to costs, delay, and Rivera’s pattern of falsity; in forma pauperis limits monetary sanctions	Court: district judge considered lesser sanctions and reasonably concluded they were inadequate; dismissal affirmed

National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (U.S. 1976) (misconduct can justify default judgment)
Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff lied about litigation history affecting in forma pauperis status)
Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Financial Servs. Americas LLC, 516 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal against plaintiff who lied to obtain interlocutory relief)
Greviskes v. Universities Research Ass’n, Inc., 417 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal for fraudulent misconduct that delayed litigation)
Thomas v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305 (7th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal as sanction for lying in in forma pauperis application)
Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) (procedures for resolving factual disputes about exhaustion under §1997e(a))
Williams v. Adams, 660 F.3d 263 (7th Cir. 2011) (limitations on monetary sanctions for in forma pauperis plaintiffs)
Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995) (litigation‑control orders and sanctions for abusive litigants)