United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted March 20, 2019*

Decided March 21, 2019 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge 

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

No. 18-2627 

TURI J. JOSEPH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TRACY ENGLESON, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 17 C 2104 

Matthew F. Kennelly, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Turi Joseph, a former Illinois inmate and adherent to the Rastafarian Nazarite 

faith, refused to cut his hair because of his religious beliefs. Prison officials then had 

him forcibly removed him from his cell and given a haircut against his will. Joseph 

exhausted his administrative remedies and sued. With the assistance of recruited 

counsel, Joseph filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that included claims 

against the warden, superintendent, and correctional officers. He alleged that they 

 

*

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

frivolous. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

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

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 18-2627 Page 2 

either issued or followed directives to cut his hair in violation of the Religious Land Use 

and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, his equal-protection rights 

under the Fourteenth Amendment, and his free-exercise rights under the First 

Amendment. 

After settlement negotiations broke down, and with the trial date approaching, 

the district court permitted Joseph’s lawyer to withdraw because Joseph had stopped 

communicating with him. The court ordered that Joseph would proceed pro se and that 

all pretrial deadlines remained in effect. But Joseph missed the deadline to provide the 

defendants with witness and exhibit lists, and the defendants moved to dismiss the case 

as a sanction or to bar Joseph from submitting evidence or testimony he had not 

disclosed. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16(f). The court did not rule on the motions before trial. On 

the day of trial, Joseph still had not supplied the defendants with the information. In a 

minute entry that day, the court stated: “Case is dismissed with prejudice for want of 

prosecution as discussed in open court.” The court separately entered judgment, noting 

that the dismissal was decided “on a motion.” Joseph appealed. 

The appellees argue that we should dismiss the appeal because Joseph’s brief 

does not address the district court’s rationale, and he has failed to submit a transcript of 

the hearing at which the court dismissed his case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 10(b)(2); 

28(a)(8). Although we construe pro se filings liberally, Joseph still must follow 

procedural rules. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Here, we 

agree with the appellees that Joseph’s brief does not comply with Rule 28(a): it reads 

like a complaint and does not “describe—let alone address or refute—any of the district 

court’s reasons” for dismissing his case. Hicks v. Avery Drei, LLC, 654 F.3d 739, 744 (7th 

Cir. 2011); Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545 (“[W]e cannot fill the void by crafting arguments 

and performing the necessary research.”). In any event, we could not examine the 

court’s decision because Joseph has not submitted a transcript of the oral ruling, as Rule 

10(b)(2) requires. See Tapley v. Chambers, 840 F.3d 370, 375 (7th Cir. 2016); Hall v. Jaeho 

Jung, 819 F.3d 378, 382–83 (7th Cir. 2016); Hicks, 654 F.3d at 743–44. 

DISMISSED