FRED CARTWRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SILVER CROSS HOSPITAL and CROTHALL HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-2595
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Decided June 18, 2020
Submitted March 19, 2020
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 15 CV 6759 — John Robert Blakey,
Before MANION, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
SYKES, Circuit Judge.
Fred Cartwright sued his former employer asserting claims of discrimination based on his race, sex, and age. Throughout four years of litigation, he repeatedly failed to appear for his deposition, missed a status hearing, would not follow the local rules regarding motion practice, refused to respond to discovery despite repeated orders to do so, and ignored the judge‘s multiple warnings that his conduct would lead to dismissal of the suit. Despite this obstructive behavior, the judge continued to recruit a succession of pro bono attorneys to assist Cartwright, each of whom invested many hours of valuable time in the case before moving to withdraw because the client would not cooperate. After permitting the fourth—yes, fourth—volunteer lawyer to withdraw, the judge finally dismissed the case as a sanction for want of prosecution.
We affirm the dismissal and take this opportunity to remind judges that they need not and should not recruit volunteer lawyers for civil claimants who won‘t cooperate with the basic requirements of litigation. Pro bono representation of indigent civil litigants is a venerable tradition in the legal profession. The courts must be careful stewards of this limited resource.
I. Background
In August 2015 Fred Cartwright filed a pro se complaint against his former employer Silver Cross Hospital and its management company Crothall Healthcare alleging claims of discrimination based on his race and sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
While representing himself, Cartwright failed to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests and refused to schedule his deposition. Cartwright also filed many motions to compel discovery and moved to hold the defendants in contempt despite the court‘s order that he must meet and confer with the defendants concerning these discovery disputes. Without explanation and despite Cartwright‘s refusal to cooperate, the judge recruited a lawyer to represent him pro bono. Counsel filed an amended complaint adding several additional claims. But shortly after that filing, the judge permitted the attorney to withdraw because of fundamental disagreements with Cartwright about the case.
The judge—again without explanation—recruited another pro bono lawyer to assist Cartwright and noted that this would be the final time. With Cartwright represented once again, the parties engaged in another unsuccessful settlement conference and then continued with discovery. But after 14 months and more than 530 hours of work, this third attorney (and his associate) also moved to withdraw citing substantial and irreconcilable disagreements with Cartwright.
The judge thereafter entered partial summary judgment for the defendants on two of Cartwright‘s claims, narrowing the case. Cartwright responded with multiple motions, including several accusing the judge of bias and demanding that he recuse himself. At the same time, the defendants
The judge ordered Cartwright to appear at the next hearing and warned that “any future failure to appear may result in a dismissal for want of prosecution.” Surprisingly, however, the order also explained that if Cartwright promised that he would work with counsel in good faith, the court would be “inclined to grant [p]laintiff yet another (and final) opportunity to enjoy the professional assistance of recruited counsel.”
Prior to the rescheduled status hearing, the defendants moved to dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute because of Cartwright‘s persistent refusal to respond to discovery and noncompliance with the court‘s orders. Cartwright appeared at the status hearing and assured the judge that he would work with counsel in good faith. Although Cartwright had repeatedly refused to follow court orders and the rules of litigation, the judge recruited yet another pro bono attorney to assist him. The judge held the defendants’ motion to dismiss in abeyance to give newly appointed counsel a chance to get up to speed on the case and then denied it as moot.
Several months later, on the eve of Cartwright‘s scheduled deposition, his attorney notified the defendants that Cartwright would not attend the deposition. No explanation was given. Counsel then moved to withdraw based on irreconcilable differences with the client. The judge granted the withdrawal motion. The defendants again moved to dismiss based on Cartwright‘s continued obstructive conduct, including his failure to appear for his deposition, the missed status hearing, and Cartwright‘s persistent refusal to resolve discovery disputes or comply with court orders. The judge took the motion under advisement and gave Cartwright time to find new representation on his own.
After four months with no appearance by new counsel, the judge set a date for Cartwright‘s deposition, cautioning him that failure to appear “may result in dismissal of the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute or otherwise to comply with the orders of this [c]ourt.” Cartwright then bombarded the court with multiple motions, including several to cancel his deposition because of his anxiety. The judge denied these motions but limited the deposition to a four-hour session (with additional sessions, if necessary) to address his concerns.
Cartwright appeared at the deposition but refused to answer many of counsel‘s questions. He said that he was not feeling well and that his doctor had advised him not to attend. Because the defendants could not finish their questioning, the judge scheduled a date for Cartwright‘s continued deposition, warning that his failure to appear “[would] result in the case being dismissed for failure to prosecute this case and for failure to comply with court orders.” The judge also told Cartwright that none of his motions complied with court rules or standing orders and that his continued noncompliance could result in dismissal of the case. In addition, the judge rejected Cartwright‘s very belated attempt to file a second amended complaint without leave of court, explaining that “the rambling[,] 88-page filing” was not a proper amendment but “merely contain[ed] a list of personal and discovery-related grievances [p]laintiff has with [d]efendants and their attorneys.”
II. Discussion
On appeal Cartwright does not engage with the district court‘s reason for dismissing his case but instead argues the merits of his claims and accuses the judge of bias. We could affirm on that basis alone. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). For completeness we note that this case presents a clear “record of delay or contumacious conduct” amply justifying a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Salata v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 757 F.3d 695, 699 (7th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Cartwright‘s willful failure to appear at his deposition was cause enough. See Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693, 696–97 (7th Cir. 2009). Yet his misconduct was far broader in scope.
During four years of litigation, Cartwright skipped three scheduled depositions, missed a status hearing, filed dozens of motions that violated local rules and the court‘s standing orders despite repeated warnings, served noncompliant discovery responses and otherwise refused to satisfy with his discovery obligations, and ignored many court orders. The judge warned Cartwright at least eight times that his conduct put his lawsuit in jeopardy of dismissal before finally following through and dismissing the case after nearly four years of incorrigible obstruction.
Indeed, the judge had ample grounds to dismiss the case much earlier in the litigation. The defendants’ first motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute catalogued Cartwright‘s wanton disregard of basic litigation obligations and court rules. The case should have ended then. Had the judge granted the first dismissal motion, the defendants would have been spared the time and expense of defending against a plaintiff so obviously unwilling to prosecute his own case.
Inexplicably, the judge persisted in using the discretionary authority codified in
700 hours on the case, withdrew because of Cartwright‘s lack of cooperation.
AFFIRMED