Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01460/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01460-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued October 6, 2016

Decided October 18, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐1460

JAN KOWALSKI,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

COOK COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEP’T.,

et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 15 CV 6500

Thomas M. Durkin,

Judge.

ORDER

Jan Kowalski sued several law enforcement officers for using excessive force

against her in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

But after she missed a deadline for filing her amended complaint and did not appear for

two status hearings, the district court dismissed her suit with prejudice for failure to

prosecute. Because the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit, we

affirm the judgment.   

In July 2015 Jan Kowalski, a licensed, practicing attorney in Illinois, filed a suit in

federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Cook County law enforcement officers

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-1460 Document: 23 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pages: 3
No. 16‐1460 Page 2

used excessive force against her. She alleged that officers investigating drug

manufacturing at the guesthouse on her property cuffed her too tightly, dragged her

down the driveway to the patrol car, and threw her into the back of the car. She asserted

that as a result she suffered nerve damage in her wrist and hand.   

Six months later, the district court dismissed Kowalski’s suit for failure to

prosecute after she missed a deadline and failed to appear at two status hearings. In

early October 2015 the court had granted Kowalski leave to amend her complaint, but

she let the deadline pass with no communication to the court. She then missed the next

scheduled status hearing in December, without attempting to reschedule or notifying

the court that she would be absent. On that day the district judge went on to other

matters to give Kowalski more time to appear and the defendants’ counsel left her

multiple voice and e‐mail messages, but Kowalski did not respond. The district court

entered an order setting a new status hearing in January 2016 and warning Kowalski

that if she did not appear personally or through counsel he would dismiss her suit. The

judge followed through on that promise and dismissed her suit when Kowalski missed

the January hearing, again with no communication or attempt to reschedule.   

Kowalski then filed a motion for reconsideration, see FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), arguing

that the court should reinstate her case because she had been too busy campaigning for

the position of Recorder of Deeds to realize that the deadline was approaching or to

contact the court about the status hearings. She contended that it was impossible for her

to appear at either of the missed status hearings—the first conflicted with an

appearance she had to make before the Cook County Board of Election and the second

occurred at the same time she had to appear in another court about an unrelated case.   

The district court denied Kowalski’s motion. The district judge concluded that as

an attorney Kowalski knew the importance of meeting court deadlines and appearing at

scheduled hearings. He recognized that she had conflicts on the dates of the missed

hearings but noted that it had been “radio silence” from her since October, and nothing

had prevented her from at least calling his chambers to try to reschedule. He

emphasized that he had explicitly warned Kowalski that a second failure to appear

would result in dismissal.   

On appeal Kowalski argues that because she had “specific and substantiated

reasons” for her unavailability at the status hearings, her behavior was not sufficiently

egregious to warrant dismissal. She further contends that the court should have

Case: 16-1460 Document: 23 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pages: 3
No. 16‐1460 Page 3

considered lesser sanctions and that the defendants suffered no prejudice from delays

so early in the litigation.

   

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Though a single

missed deadline or status hearing does not always warrant dismissal, see Kruger v. Apfel,

214 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 2000); Del Carmen v. Emerson Elec. Co., 908 F.2d 158, 163

(7th Cir. 1990), this court has upheld such a sanction “for plaintiffs who fail to attend

multiple hearings and have been warned of the possibility of dismissal.” McInnis v.

Duncan, 697 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Fischer v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 446

F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2006); Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752, 753–54 (7th Cir. 1993).

And though district courts should generally consider less severe sanctions, they do not

abuse their discretion in “declining to employ progressive discipline,” especially where,

as here, the plaintiff has been warned and the negligence is traceable to the plaintiff

herself, rather than her attorney. McInnis, 697 F.3d at 665; see Johnson v. Kamminga,

34 F.3d 466, 468 (7th Cir. 1994); Ball, 2 F.3d at 756. Finally, the plaintiff’s behavior is not

excused by the fact that it happened early in the litigation process; the delay wasted the

defendants’ and the court’s time and resources. See McInnis, 697 F.3d at 662–63, 665

(upholding dismissal for failure to prosecute suit that had been ongoing for only a few

months and was still in the pre‐answer stage).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-1460 Document: 23 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pages: 3