A fteran e xam i nati on o fthe bri ef s a nd the re cor d, w e hav e co ncl ud ed that or al * ar gu m en t is u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s t h e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d
. F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)( 2). 

# United States Court of App eals

F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d M ar ch 31, 20 09 * Deci ded A pri l 1, 20 09 B efo re FR A N K H . E A ST E R B R O O K , Chie f Judg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08- 2845 STA CY A LE XA N DE R, etal
. , A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct P laint if fs -App el lants , Court f orthe So uthern Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s.
v. No
. 0 7
- CV
- 6 3 4
- W DS C A SIN O Q U E E N IN C ., W illiam D . Stie h l, D efend a nt-A pp ellee
. Judge . 

### O R D E R S ta cyAl ex an der, Kathi e M i l l er, a nd Ki m Ro g er s su ed th ei r f o r m ere m pl o y er, Ca sino Q u ee n Inc ., for em p loy m en t d isc rim in at ion . A fte r th e p lain tiffs rep ea te d ly fa iled to co m p ly w ith p roced ura l rules an d cou rt directives, the d istri ct cou rt dism issed their case for f ail ure t o p r o s e c u t e . T h e y a p p e a l, a n d w e a ffi r m. I n J uly20 06 the three em plo yee s fi l ed separ ate co m pla i nts with the Eq ual Em plo ym ent Opportuni ty Com m i ssi on, al l eging tha t Casi no Queen had dis cri m i nated NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08- 2845 Page 2

ag ains t th em o n the b as i s o fthe i r r ac e ( Afr i ca n Am er i ca n) i n v i o l at i o n o fTi tl e VI Io fthe Civi l Ri ghts A ct o f19 64, 42 U
. S. C. § 2 000e et seq . , and 42 U
. S. C. § 1 981. The EEO C sent them rig h t-t o-s u e le tt er s; on th e la st d ay of th e p er m itt ed 90 -d ay p er iod , th ey br ou gh t t h is l aw sui t. Thei r att or ney, however, di d not fi l e the co m pla i nt el ectr oni cal l y a s r equi re d by the l oca l r ule s, and so the f ol l owing m onth the di str i ct c ourto rder ed them to sho w cause why the i r c as e sh o ul d no t be di smi ss ed f o r f ai l ur e to pr o se cut e. Co uns elr es po nde d tha t he had m i sund er sto od the l oca l r ule s a nd thata m edi calco nd i ti on had pre vente d him fro m c or re c tin g t h e m ist ak e s oo n er . This ear l y s car e di d not i m prove co unsel ’ s per f or m ance. A dd i ti onali nstance s o f noncom pli ance w i th federa l and l oca l r ule s, as wellas co urt- or dered deadl i nes, l ed to furtherwarni ngs o fdi sm i ssa l f orf ai l ure to pros ecute. I n ear l y 2 008 the pl ai nti ff s’ f ai l ure to ser ve Casi no Queen pro perl y pr om pted the c ourtto advi se them thatdi sm i ssa l f orwant of pros ecuti on was ( aga i n) i m m i nent. The l aw yerfi xed the s er vi ce pr obl em , but anothe r i nci dent so on a ro se: i n M ay, he di sr ega rded a m agi str ate j ud ge’ s di re cti ve to i ni ti ate a pr et r i alc o nfer en ce c al l b etwee n the c o ur t an d the pa r ti es . The c o ur t ag ain o r der ed th e pla i nti ff s t o show cause why thei r case sho uld notbe dism i sse d fo r f ai l ure to pros ecute. W hen counse l di d not co m plywith thi s o rder, the dist ri ct j ud ge adopted the m agi str ate j ud ge’ s r eco m m endati on ( m ade on hi s o w n i ni ti ati ve) thatthe case be dism i sse d w i th p rej u d ice for fa ilu re to p ro se c u te . Th e p lain tiffs res p on d ed by filing a “le tt er of ob j ec tio n,” i n w hi ch theyas ked the co urt to ove rturn the di sm i ssa l bec ause thei r att or ney ha d “dropped the ba l l ” a nd “g ro ssl y m i sr epres ented” them ; theyal so ask ed f or30 days to see k ne w co uns el
. The di st r i ctj udg e co ns tr ue d thi s l et te r a s a m o ti o n f o r r ec o ns i der at i o n a nd ex te n sio n of tim e a n d d en ied th e m ot ion
. The pla i nti ff s, now procee ding pro se, appealthe dism i ssa l o fthei r case f orf ai l ure to pr o se cut e. The y a r g ue tha t di smi ss alr el i ev es Ca sino Que eno fl i ab i l i tyf o r di sc r i m i na ting ag ain st th em an d th at it is u n fair to p u n ish th em for t h e u n p ro fes sio n al c on d u c t o f th eir at to rn ey . A t t h e o u ts et w e n ot e t h at th e p lain tiffs ’ ap p ella te br ief b ea rs th e s ign at u re of on ly St acy A l exander. But A l exander, a non- l aw yer, m ay not re prese nt the i nter est s o fM i l l ero r Roger s. S ee M a lo ne v . N ielson , 47 4 F .3d 93 4, 93 7 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); Un i t e d S t a t e s ex re l
. L u v . Ou , 368 F. 3d 773, 77 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. Because M i l l erand Roge rs nei thersi gned the bri efnor fi l ed one ofthei r own, theyar e di sm i sse d as par ti es to thi s a pp eal
. S ee M uzi kows kiv. P a ram o un t P ictu res Co rp ., 32 2 F .3d 91 8, 92 4 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ). A s f orthe m er i ts, o ur r evi ew o fa dism i ssa l f orf ai l ure to pros ecute i s defer enti al, se e G abri el v. Ham li n , 51 4 F
. 3d 734, 73 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , and w e co ncl ud e that the co urt did notN o. 08- 2845 Page 3

abu se its discretion h ere. D istri ct cou rts ha ve th e po w er to control their doc kets, and there com es a poi nt wh en di sr ega rd o fco urt rul es and or ders beco m es so ser i ous that s ancti ons, i ncl ud i ng di sm i ssi ng a case sua s ponte, ar e in or der. S ee Li nk v. W ab as h R. R. Co. , 37 0 U.S
. 62 6, 63 0-3 1 (1 96 2); A ura La m p & Lig hti ng, Inc. v. Interna tio na l Trad ing C o rp . , 32 5 F
. 3d 903, 90 9- 10 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3)
. I n thr ee s epa r at e sh o w-c au se o r der s, the c o ur t f o r m al l y war ne d the pl aint i ff s ( th r o ug h c o uns el ) abo utthe pr o spe cto fdi smi ss al ; the l as t o fthe o r der s el i ci te d no r es po ns e ata l l
. The pl aint i ff s ur g e th atthe y a r e bl amel es s an d tha t r es po ns ibi l i tyf o r the m al f ea sa nc e l i es o nl y wi ththe i r a tt o r ne y, b utthe “ sins o fthe a g en t ca n b e vi si te d upo n the pri nci pal
. ” B all v. C ity of Chi. , 2 F. 3d 752, 75 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)
. I fthei r att or ney c om m i tte d m al pract i ce, the pla i nti ff s ca n br i ng a m al pract i ce a cti on a gai nst hi m ; theysho uld not, ho wev er, b e per m i tt ed to s hi ft th e bur deno fhi s ne g l ec t to the di st r i ctc o ur t an d the d efe n d an t. Tango M usi c, LLCv. D eadquick M usi c, Inc. , 348 F.3d 24 4, 24 7 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ). M i l l era nd Ro g er s ar e di smi ss ed as pa r ti es t o thi s appe al, a nd the j udg m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s o ther w i se A FFI RMED .