United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted October 23, 2020*

Decided October 26, 2020 

Before 

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge 

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge 

No. 19-2825 

DAVID M. JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STEVEN MNUCHIN, Secretary of the 

Treasury, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

14 C 2233 

John Z. Lee 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

David Johnson, a former employee of the Internal Revenue Service, appeals the 

dismissal of his employment-discrimination suit as a sanction for abusing the judicial 

process. We affirm. 

*

 We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs 

and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would 

not significantly aid the court. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 19-2825 Page 2 

After being fired from his job, Johnson sued the Secretary of the Treasury, 

currently Steven Mnuchin, for a litany of claims, including race discrimination, hostile 

work environment, many state-law claims, and retaliation for filing a complaint with 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The district court later granted 

summary judgment against Johnson on several claims but allowed him to proceed to 

trial on Title VII claims of retaliation and disparate treatment. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–e17. 

The proceedings in the district court were protracted. Over the course of five 

years, Johnson peppered the court with filings, often staking out frivolous positions in 

motions and pleadings. He also refused to cooperate in the discovery and pretrial 

processes. He repeatedly failed to make required court appearances and delayed the 

progress of the case through vexatious litigation tactics (e.g., filing motions to compel 

discovery even before effectuating proper service on the defendant; prematurely 

seeking judgment on the pleadings before the defendant had filed an answer; and filing 

baseless motions, often in disregard of the court’s timeline for the case). He obstructed 

the pretrial process by seeking continuances, pursuing positions that the court 

characterized as unreasonable, issuing baseless subpoenas or ignoring the court’s 

standing orders, and failing to participate in the court’s efforts to craft an agenda for the 

final pretrial conference. 

In September 2019, the district court ordered Johnson to show cause why the case 

should not be dismissed based on his intractable conduct. Two days later, Johnson filed 

“objections” that the court described as “barely responsive.” (Johnson challenged the 

court’s order, for example, as “void without jurisdiction.”) Johnson blamed the 

defendant for his noncompliance with the court’s standing orders. 

After repeated warnings, the district court decided to dismiss Johnson’s case as a 

sanction for his conduct. The court justified its decision based on its need to manage its 

docket, Johnson’s willful and bad-faith conduct throughout the litigation, the likely 

ineffectiveness of lesser sanctions, the prejudice to the defendant as a result of Johnson’s 

conduct, and the need for deterrence and punishment.

On appeal, Johnson does not engage with the district court’s reasons for 

dismissing his case and instead argues the merits of his claims. We could affirm on that 

basis alone. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 

2001). For completeness, however, we emphasize that this case’s record demonstrates 

unmistakably Johnson’s intransigence, vexatious conduct, and flouting of court orders, 

all of which amply justify dismissal as a sanction. Brown v. Columbia Sussex Corp., 
No. 19-2825 Page 3 

664 F.3d 182, 190–91 (7th Cir. 2011). Johnson regularly missed required court hearings, 

defied court orders, pressed frivolous arguments, and pursued this litigation in bad 

faith. This bad faith conduct continued during the time that Johnson was represented 

by counsel. Rather than complying with the district court’s request that all filings go 

through his lawyer, Johnson continued to make his own filings, without consulting his 

attorney. The court warned Johnson of the consequences of his continued misconduct, 

and, after waiting patiently, issued a show-cause order directing him to explain why his 

case should not be dismissed for noncompliance with court orders, and his response did 

not address the court’s concerns. Providing such notice and the opportunity to be heard 

was all that the court needed to give Johnson. See Fischer v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 446 

F.3d 663, 664–66 (7th Cir. 2006); Shaffer v. Lashbrook, 962 F.3d 313, 316 (7th Cir. 2020). 

Judge Lee demonstrated remarkable patience throughout the course of this litigation, 

and the district court acted well within its discretion to dismiss the case as a sanction. 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Johnson’s motion for a summary 

reversal is DENIED as irrelevant.