Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01360/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01360-0/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 

Submitted October 23, 2015*

Decided October 23, 2015 

Before 

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge 

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 15-1360 

ROBERT SCHINDLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ADVOCATE HEALTHCARE, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division. 

No. 14 C 880 

Sharon Johnson Coleman 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Robert Schindler, a former patient transporter at Advocate Lutheran General 

Hospital, appeals the dismissal of his civil-rights suit for failure to prosecute. The district 

court had dismissed his complaint after he failed to appear for five of the eight hearings 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is 

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

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

Case: 15-1360 Document: 40 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pages: 4
No. 15-1360 Page 2 

held in the case and failed to meet a court-imposed deadline for responding to 

defendants’ various motions to dismiss. We affirm. 

In February 2014 Schindler filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging 

violations of his constitutional rights in connection with an ongoing criminal case 

brought against him in state court. He had been arrested two years earlier at the hospital 

and charged with sending harassing emails and defacing property; two days after his 

arrest, he was fired. He brought a host of claims—false arrest, false imprisonment, and 

malicious prosecution in violation of the Illinois and United States Constitutions, and 

employment discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12182, and 12203. He named 15 

defendants—among them Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, the Park Ridge Police 

Department, the Illinois State’s Attorney’s Office, two Public Defenders, two private 

attorneys, and two Cook County judges. 

After filing his complaint, Schindler failed to appear at five of the eight hearings 

in the district court. He appeared at the first status hearing on April 21, but missed the 

next hearing on April 28 (one that had been scheduled to address his motion to 

reconsider recruitment of counsel). He appeared at hearings on May 8 and June 12, but 

missed the next one on July 10 (to address, in part, his motions for default judgment). He 

failed to appear at the hearing on July 24, after which the court in a minute entry set the 

next hearing for September 5 and warned him: “If plaintiff fails to appear at the next 

status, this case will be dismissed for want of prosecution.” Schindler failed to appear at 

that hearing on September 5, as well as a motions hearing that had been previously set 

for August 21. 

In the meantime Schindler also failed to respond by the court-ordered deadline to 

five of defendants’ six motions to dismiss. He had responded timely only to the City of 

Park Ridge’s motion to dismiss; he ignored the remaining motions, even after the court 

had extended his deadline to respond by another month. On September 2, two days 

before that extended deadline lapsed, Schindler again sought an extension and asked 

that counsel be recruited to assist him. 

At a status hearing on September 5, the judge in a minute order dismissed the 

action for want of prosecution because Schindler “has again failed to appear.” See FED. R.

CIV. P. 41(b). 

Case: 15-1360 Document: 40 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pages: 4
No. 15-1360 Page 3 

On appeal Schindler generally challenges the dismissal of his suit for failure to 

prosecute. He argues that he did not receive unspecified court documents or notices due 

to mail delivery problems and that his absences should be excused. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his suit for failure to 

prosecute. Schindler accumulated a clear record of delay or contumacious 

conduct—missing 5 of 8 hearings and responding to only 1 out of 5 motions to dismiss. 

The court had imposed other less drastic sanctions, such as striking motions when 

Schindler failed to appear. These steps failed to move the case along. The court also gave 

Schindler an adequate warning shot: after he had missed a hearing for the third time, the 

court explicitly warned him that failure to appear at the next hearing would result in 

dismissal. See Kasalo v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., 656 F.3d 557, 562 (7th Cir. 2011). 

Schindler’s alleged lack of notice excuse does not save him. The district court 

mailed notice of each minute entry, so we presume that it was delivered. See Laouini v. 

CLM Freight Lines, Inc., 586 F.3d 473, 476 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[I]t is well-established that 

evidence of proper mailing raises a rebuttable presumption of delivery.”). Schindler 

does not specify what documents he did not receive or provide any evidence to 

corroborate his claim that certain documents did not arrive. See Derezinski v. Mukasey, 

516 F.3d 619, 622 (7th Cir. 2008). Litigants are responsible for maintaining 

communication with the court and monitoring the status of their lawsuit, and Schindler 

should have checked in with the court if he had concerns about his mail delivery. Easley 

v. Kirmsee, 382 F.3d 693, 697–98 (7th Cir. 2004); Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 922 

(8th Cir. 2005). 

Schindler also suggests that his neglect is excused by his legal blindness, a 

condition that, he says, affects his ability to type long documents and reach court early in 

the morning by public transportation. But Schindler’s visual impairment does not excuse 

his neglect. He does not contend that he actually missed any hearings due to his 

condition, or that he sought accommodations such as a hearing time scheduled later in 

the day or the opportunity to participate in a hearing by phone. See Harrington v. City of 

Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 547–48 (7th Cir. 2006) (upholding dismissal due to neglect where 

counsel did not inform the court of deaths in the family and seek accommodation). 

Schindler might have explained his circumstances in a motion to reconsider or to 

vacate the dismissal, thereby giving the district court the opportunity to assess his 

arguments. See FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), 60; McInnis v. Duncan, 697 F.3d 661, 664–65 (7th Cir. 

2012); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). But having failed to do so, 

Case: 15-1360 Document: 40 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pages: 4
No. 15-1360 Page 4 

there is no basis for us to conclude that district court abused its discretion in dismissing 

the case. See McInnis, 697 F.3d at 664–65. 

Schindler also argues that the district court wrongly denied his requests for 

recruitment of counsel. He had asked the court to recruit counsel upon filing his 

complaint. The court apparently never ruled on the request, though Schindler’s 

subsequent requests to reconsider were respectively stricken, denied without prejudice, 

and denied as moot without further explanation. Schindler maintains that he needed a 

lawyer because his case is complex, originates from a delayed and unresolved criminal 

case against him, and his capabilities are limited by his visual impairment. 

The district court’s implicit denials of Schindler’s requests may have been error, 

Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 659 n.14, 660 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc), but any error was 

harmless because he cannot show that he was prejudiced. See Romanelli v. Suliene, 

615 F.3d 847, 852 (7th Cir. 2010); Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 659. His case was dismissed only after 

he repeatedly missed hearings and deadlines; adhering to court directions does not 

require specialized knowledge of counsel. 

We have considered Schindler’s remaining arguments and none has merit. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 15-1360 Document: 40 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pages: 4