NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted February 17, 2010 * Decided March 3, 2010


### Before F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK , Chief Judge D IANE P. W OOD , Circuit Judge A NN C LAIRE W ILLIAMS , Circuit Judge

No. 09

- 3062 F RANKLIN C. E DMONDS , Plaintiff

- Appellant , v . O PERATING E NGINEERS L OCAL 139 , Defendant

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 08

- cv - 644

- bbc Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge

.

Order Franklin Edmonds has filed at least three race

- discrimination suits against his union, which he contends is not assigning African

- Americans to construction projects on the same basis as it assigns white workers. In the first suit, filed in the Eastern Dist rict of Wisconsin in 1997, Edmonds was one of several class representatives. A consent decree was e n tered in 2002; a court

- appointed monitor kept tabs on the union’s compliance. When Edmonds contended that the union had violated its obligations

— and should have made the out

- of

- work list available to him so that he as well as the monitor could supervise compliance

— the Eastern District rejected Edmonds’s contentions. The mon itor concluded, an d the district judge found, that the union had performed its obligati ons and is not r e quired to give Edmonds copies of the out

- of

- work lists. After the decree had been in force for five years, the district court found on March 30, 2007, that the u nion was not engaged in discrimination and ended its oblig a tions under the dec ree. Edmonds then sued in the Western District of Wisconsin. That suit, No. 08

- cv - 567

- bbc, was dismissed on the ground of claim preclu sion (res judicata). 620 F. Supp. 2d 966 (W.D. Wis. 2009). Edmonds did not ap peal

— but neither did he accept defeat. He urg ed

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnece s sary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).No. 09

- 3062 Page 2 this third suit, which like the second has been dismissed as precluded to the e x tent that it rests on fe d eral law. 2009 U.S. Dist. L EXIS 61146 (W.D. Wis. July 17, 2009). The district court relinquished supplemental juri s diction of claims under state law . 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3). This time Edmonds a p pealed. The district judge rightly concluded that the suit is barred twice over

— not only by the action in the Eastern District of Wisconsin but also by the first action in the Western District. The claims and pa rties are the same; both of the other suits went to final jud gment; all elements of claim preclusion have been established. See Taylor v. Sturgell , 128 S. Ct. 2161, 2171 (2008). What is more, Title VII has its own rule of preclusion, which prevents further litigation about matters covered by consent decrees. 42 U.S.C. §2000e

– 2(n). The district court’s careful opinion does not require repetition or elab o ration here. But we do have one thing to add. Edmonds has been litigating against the union for 13 years. His argument that the union must make the out

- of

- work lists available to him has been rejected three times. The doctrine of claim preclusion implements a fundame ntal norm that one round of litigation suffices. Edmonds must understand that any fu rther suits based on the same allegations and contentions will subject him to sanctions, potentially including not only fines but also an order directing clerks of court to return hi s papers unfiled. See Homola v. McNamara , 59 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 1995); Support System s International v. Mack , 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995). If the union embarks on a discrimin atory course that differs from the practices a lleged in these three suits, then Edmonds is free to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and follow up with lit igation. But if the union simply continues to behave as it has done in the past, no more litigation is appr o priate. The doctrines of issue and claim preclusion may be hard for a non

- lawyer to understand; Edmonds should consult with legal counsel b e fore fil ing any further suits. In the end, however, Edmonds must bear personal respo n sibility for his choices, and further suits making the same allegations will simply lead to san c tions. A FFIRMED