# 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, J udge

.

O R D E R

Turi Joseph, a former Illinois inmate an d 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 corr ectional officers. He alleged that they

* We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(A). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1No. 18-2627 Page 2

either issued or followed directives to cut hi s 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 Amend ment, 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 th at Joseph would proceed pro se and that all pretrial deadlines remained in effect. Bu t Joseph missed the deadline to provide the defendants with witness and exhibit lists, an d the defendants moved to dismiss the case as a sanction or to bar Joseph from subm itting evidence or testimony he had not disclosed. See F ED

. R. C IV

. 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: “Cas e is dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution as discussed in open court.” Th e court separately entered judgment, noting that the dismissal was decided “o n a motion.” Joseph appealed.
The appellees argue that we should dism iss 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 F ED

. R. C IV

. 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 brie f does not comply with Rule 28(a): it reads like a complaint and does not “describe—let al one 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 submi tted 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