Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792

Stanard built an outdoor amphitheater on his rural McHenry County property and hosted events.
He alleges Sheriff Nygren coerced him to hire off-duty deputies at inflated rates as private security, threatening to close the road to his property.
The complaint named Nygren (individual and official capacities), 22 deputies, McHenry County, and unknown defendants, asserting numerous federal and state claims as a group against all defendants.
District court found the second amended complaint incomprehensible and failed to comply with Rules 8 and 10, dismissing with prejudice.
The court later denied Maksym three chances to replead, culminating in dismissal with prejudice; on appeal, Stanard contests only the denial of leave to amend and the dismissal, while Maksym’s briefing and conduct are criticized; court orders to show cause regarding discipline of Maksym were issued.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice, citing repeated failure to cure deficiencies and noncompliance with court directives.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend	Stanard argues leave to amend should have been granted	Defendants contend the court acted within discretion to deny based on serious deficiencies	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Whether the dismissal with prejudice was appropriate given Maksym’s failures	Stanard argues errors in pleading were curable	Defendants assert repeated failure to cure and disregard for court orders warrant prejudice	Dismissal with prejudice affirmed
Whether sanctions against Maksym for appellate briefing were warranted	Maksym claims inadequate opportunities to correct	Court may discipline for deficient briefing and noncompliance with rules	Sanctions and potential suspension appropriate; show-cause order issued

Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818 (7th Cir.2001) (abuse of discretion standard for leave to amend; undue delay and failure to cure deficiencies)
Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788 (7th Cir.2008) (leave to amend denied for repeated failure to cure deficiencies)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (liberal amendment policy; discretion to deny where prejudice or futility shown)
Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663 (7th Cir.2007) (district court may dismiss for repeated failure to plead properly)
Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374 (7th Cir.2003) (unintelligibility can justify dismissal where notice is lacking)
Palka v. Shelton, 623 F.3d 447 (7th Cir.2010) (standard of review for dismissal orders in pleadings)
Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420 (7th Cir.2009) (abuse of discretion review for leave to replead)
Davis v. City of Chicago, ? (?) ((contextual reference to Rule 8/10 pleading standards))
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct.2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)