The appe l l ee s wer e ne ver s er ved wi th pr oc es s i n the  dist r i c tc ou r ta nd a r e n otpa r t i c i pa t i ng i n the s e a ppe a l s . Af ter ex am i ni ng the appe l l ant ’ s b riefan d t he r ec or d, we ha ve c onclu d ed tha t o r a l arg u m en t is u nn ecessar y . T hu s, the a p p eals a r e s ubm i t t e d o n the a ppe l l a nt ’ s br i e fa nd the r e c or d. S e e F e d. R . A p p . P . 34 (a )(2)(C ). 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10

- 1619 , 10

- 1627, 10

- 1629 , 10

- 1640 & 10

- 1643 J OS HUA H OS KI NS, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. T HO M AS D ART, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeals from the United St ates District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No s. 10 C 0677, 10 C0703, 10 C 0705, 10 C0702 & 10 C0676

—Blan ch e M. Man nin g, Judge . S UB MI TT ED D ECE MBE R 22, 2010

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 20, 2011 

Befo re B AUER, T INDER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges .2 N os. 10

- 1619 , 10

- 1627, 10

- 1629 , 10

- 1640 & 10

- 1643 P ER C UR I AM . J oshua Hoski n s, a pri sone r i n I l l i noi s, br o ug htfi ve s ui ts unde r 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 98 3 ag ai nstthe Sh er iff of C oo k C ou n ty , I llin ois , an d va riou s p ris on officer s. The di str i ct c ourtdi sm i ss ed H osk i ns’ sui ts after c on c lu d in g th at h e frau d u len tly m isr ep re se n te d h is l i t i g a t i o n h i s t o r y t o th e c o u r t . We a ffi r m. H osk i ns’ fi ve com pla i nts a l l ege thatthe o ffi cer s use d ex cess ive ph ysical f or c e a gainsthim and others, l eft hi m na k ed o ve r ni g hti n a c o l d, dr aftyc el l duringthe wi nt er, de ni ed hi m pr es cr ibe d ps y ch i at r i c m edi ca ti o n, and refused to p ro cess pri sone r gr i evance s a dequ ate l y. H osk i ns c om p l ete d his fi ve com pla i nts o n cour t- i ssued f or m s. Each f or m or dered hi m to l i st “A LL law sui ts” th athe ha d fi l ed o r r i skdi smi ss al o fhi s ca se . The war ni ng f or v i o l a t i ng the o r de r a pp e a r s i n b o l d, c a pi t a l i z e d f ont:
“ Y O U WI LL N OT B E E X C US E D F R O M F I L L I NG O UT THI S S ECT I ON CO M PL ET EL Y, AND F AI LURE T O D O SO M A Y RE SUL T I N DI SM I SS A L OF YO U R C A SE
. ” A yea r ear l i er, H osk i ns had fi l ed thr ee federa l civi l r i ghts c as es on sim ilar cla im s, all o fw h i c h h e w as st ill l i ti g at i ng, b utHos k i ns di d no t l i stthe m o n a ny o fthe fi ve com p lai nt s. I ns tead , he p rom inen tly m ad e large X’s thro ugh the l i ti gat i on- h i sto rypor ti on o fhi s co m pla i nts. H e then cer ti fi ed the accura cy of h i s co m pla i nts b y sig n in g e ac h of th em be low a w ar n in g c au tio n in g h im that i fhi s ce rt i fi cati on was i ncor re ct, he “ m ay be s ubj ect to sa n c tio n s b y t h e c ou rt .” The dis tr i ct c ourt s cre ened the case s a nd di sco ver ed th atHos k i ns ha d o m i tt ed hi s l i ti g at i o n h i story. The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und thatthe o m i ss i o ns wer e f r au dul en tN os. 10

- 1619 , 10

- 1627, 10

- 1629 , 10

- 1640 & 10

- 1643 3

an d then dism issed each case w ith p rej ud ice. Th e cou rt re asoned that H osk i ns m ade m ate ri aland f al se om i ssi o ns b ec au se he f ai l ed to i d en ti fy the thr ee c as es tha t he w as curr entl y l i ti gat i ng be f or e th e c ou rt . The co urt note d that H osk i ns ce rt i fied the com pla i nts’ acc uracyev en though they were i ncor re ct. Because H oskin s had re c en tly filed th os e t h re e p en d in g c as es an d w a s st ill ac ti ve l y l i ti g at i ngthe m , the c o ur t co nc l ude d tha t th e om i ssi ons w er e not acci dental, so dism i ssa l w i th pre j ud i ce was an appropri ate sa ncti on. H osk i ns appeal s. W e r evi ew the d ist ric t co urt’ s fi nd i ng o ffra ud f orcl ear er ro r and i ts dism i ssa l o fH osk ins’ cl ai m s with prej ud i ce f orabuse o fdi scr eti on. S ee Tho m a s v . G enera l M o to rs A ccep ta nc e C o rp . , 288 F.3d 305 , 307-08 (7th C ir. 2002). The dis tr i ct c ourtdi d not cl ear l y e rri n fi n d ing that H os kin s’ o m i ss ion s w er e b ot h m at er ial a n d int en tio n al, an d th u s f r a u d u l e n t . Ho s k i n s d o e s n o t d e n y th a t he fi l ed and w as sti l l act i vel y l i ti gati ng the thr ee case s. N or does he den y th at hi s s i gned com pla i nts c ontained the hi g hl i g ht e d ins t r uc t i o ns o r de r i ngh i m t o l i s ttho se l aw su its. H osk i ns i nsi sts , i nstea d, that hi s o m i ssi on w as i nnocent. H e cl ai m s that he tr usted ano theri nm ate w h o h elp ed h im on a p r e v i o u s c as e a n d w h o t old h im th at he cou ld igno r e the p ortion of th e com p lai nt f orm r equi r i ngtha t he l i sthi s l i ti g at i o n h i st o r y . Buthe si gned the com pla i nts, an d t h e s i gnatur e page ( w hi ch he does notdeny r eadi ng) advi sed him t h at hi s s i gnatu r e ce r ti fi ed th e tr uth o fthe e nt i r e co m pl aint, i ncludi ng the l i t i g a t i o n- hi s t o r y s e c t i o n tha tHo s k i ns c r o s s e d o ut . The cour t wa s w ith in i ts ri ghts i n rej ecting hi s cl ai m o f4 N os. 10

- 1619 , 10

- 1627, 10

- 1629 , 10

- 1640 & 10

- 1643 i nn o c e nc e a nd fi nd i ngfr a ud
. S e e g e ne ra l l y D ugan v. R.J. Co r man R. R. Co. , 3 44 F
. 3d 66 2, 6 67( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( no ting th atthe r e i s no “ Idi dn’t read i t” de fen se t o s i g ne d c o ntracts ). H avi ng f ound fr aud, the di str i ct c ourthad the disc re t i o n t o d ism iss H os kin s’ c as es as a sa n c tio n . In ge n er al, co ur ts m ayi m po se a ppr o pr i at e sa nc ti o ns , i nc l udi ng dism i ssa l o r d efaul t, ag ai nst l i ti gants wh o vi ol ate disc ove ryr ule s a nd o therr ule s an d order s desi gned to en ab l e j udg es t o c ont rol the i r do ck et s an d m an ag e th e fl o w ofl i ti g at i o n. Se e, e . g. , Wick ens v. Sh e l l O i l C o ., 620 F.3d 747, 759 (7th C ir. 2010) (affi r m ing d istri ct cou rt’s disc re ti onar y d ec i si on t o i m pose l ess ersa ncti on f or fai lure to m ake d isclosure u n d e r F ed
. R. Civ. P. 26(a)( 1)); In re Thom as Con soli dated Industr ie s, Inc. , 45 6 F
. 3d 719, 72 4- 25 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06 ) (a ffi rm i ng di sm i ssa l as di sco ver y s anction); Newm an v. M et ropolit an P ie r & E xpo si ti on A uth
. , 96 2 F. 2d 589, 59 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) ( affi rm i ng di sm iss al a s di sc ov er y s an c tio n ); H indm on v. N ational-Ben Frankl in Life Ins . Corp. , 6 77F
. 2d 61 7, 6 18 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 2) ( affi r m i ng di smi ss ala nd de f au l t as di sc o ve ry sa nc ti o n)
. S an ct i o ns mayi nc l ud e di s mi s s i ngc o mpl a i nt s c o nt a i ning fr a ud

ul e nt i nfo r mat i o n. S ee Slo a n v . Lesza , 181 F. 3d 857, 85 8- 59 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9) ( di smi ss i nga ppea l f o r de ce pti o n abo ut “st ri ki ng o ut” under 2 8 U
. S. C. § 1 915( g) ) ; se e a l so A m m o ns v . Gerlin ger, 54 7 F
. 3d 724, 72 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) (dism issi ng ap p eal f or dec ep tion abou t fina nc ia l statu s); Taylo rv. Chi ca go P o l i ceD ept ., 20 08 W L 24 77 69 4, at *4 (N .D . I ll. Ju n e 1 8, 2 0 08 ) (D ow , J. ) (d ism iss in g a c tio n in p ar t fo r fra u d u len t o m iss ion of litiga tio n h ist or y), aff’d, Taylo rv. C i ty of

Chi cago , 334 F. A pp ’ x 760 ( 7th Ci r. J une 23,N os. 10

- 1619 , 10

- 1627, 10

- 1629 , 10

- 1640 & 10

- 1643 5 2009 )
. S uch sancti ons ar e p er m i ssibl e in a c ase l i ke thi s b e cause a d i s t r i c tc o ur tr e l i e s o n a p a r t y ’ s de s c r i pti on o fhi s l i ti gat i on hi sto ryto m an ag e i ts docket
. Dis cl osure o fa pri sone r’ s l i ti gat i on hist or y enabl es a co urt to a dh e r e t o the thr e e - s t r i k e r e qui re m e nto f2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 915(g )
. S ee Sl oan , 18 1 F
. 3d at 858- 59 ( describi ng nee d for reli able inform ation ab ou t prior l iti gation). W e hav e co n sid er ed case s with si m i l arf acts befor e, albe i t i n n o n-p re ce den ti alde ci si o ns a nd wi th o utha ving to d ec id e w h et h e r a fr au d u len t litig at ion h ist or y jus tified th e s an c tio n of d ism iss al w ith p rej u d ice . See , e . g. , Taylo rv. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 33 4 F
. A pp ’ x at 761 ( affi rm ing o n al ter native gr ounds w i thout re achi ng i ssue offra ud o n th e c ou rtby om iss ion of litiga t i o n h ist or y); He ar d v
. Bl ag ojevi ch , 216 F. A pp ’ x 568 , 57 1 ( 7th Ci r. Fe b. 7, 20 07) ( noti ng that a dist ri ct cour t has disc re ti on ar y author i ty to di smiss a c as e as a s an ct i o n f o r fi l i nga fr au dul en t com pla i nt, but re m anding on o therg ro u nd s)
. Other cir cui ts ha ve de ci ded th ata fr au dul en t l i ti g at i o n h i st o ry w ar ra n ts d i s m i ss al, bu t a ga in in n on -p re c ed en tia l d ec isi ons. S ee G reer v. Sch riro, 25 5 F. A p p ’x 285 (9th Cir. N ov. 26 , 20 07) ; Ho o d v . To m pk ins, 197 F. A pp ’ x 818, 819 (11th Cir
. A ug. 7, 20 06) ( p e r c u r i a m) ; B yrd v. R o m ley, 1 31 F
. App’ x 5 4 8 , 5 4 9 ( 9 th Ci r . M a y 1 3 , 20 05) ; Al b r ightv. H o lden , 99 F. 3d 1145 ( 9th Cir
. Oct. 15 , 19 96)
. Be ca us e o fthe i m port ance o faffi rm i ng a dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s di scr eti on t o i m pose sancti ons, i ncl ud i ng di sm i ssa l, ag ai nst l i ti gants w ho i ntenti onal l y m i sr epres ent thei r l i ti gat i on hi sto ry, w e publ i sh o ur deci si on t oday. Fi nal l y, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d n ot abuse i ts disc re ti on in th is c as e. T h e c o u r t c or re c tly ac kn ow led ge d th atit6 N os. 10

- 1619 , 10

- 1627, 10

- 1629 , 10

- 1640 & 10

- 1643 shoul d gener al l y c onsi der l ess ersa ncti ons bef or e di sm issi ng a com pla i nt with prej ud i ce, ci ti ng Ol i v e rv. G ram ely, 2 00 F
. 3d 46 5, 4 66 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9)
. W e vi ew the cou rt’s citati on of O liv er as de m o nst r at i ngtha t i t co nsi der ed l es se r sa nc ti o ns . M o ne ta r y s an ct i o ns a r e g en er al l y no t as e ffec ti ve a g ains t a pr o s e pl aint i ffpr o ce eding as a pa upe r, a s H o sk i ns do es he r e. F ur therm ore , the f o r m c o m pl aintpr o m i ne nt l y war ne d Hos k i ns of the p o t e n t i a l c o n s e q u e n c e o fs a n c t i o n s a n d d i s mi s s a l
. We have up hel d dism i ssa l s a fte r dis tr i ct c ourt s hav e warned li tigant s abou t con seq ue n ces of disobe ying oth er cou rt rul es that ar e nee ded to m anage j ud i ci albusi n es s. S ee Fi s ch e rv. Ci ngu l arWi r e l e s s, LL C, 446 F. 3d 66 3, 66 5- 66 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ); Ball v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 2 F. 3d 752, 75 5- 56 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)
. A l though the d ist ric t co urt w oul d have been w ell w ithin its d iscretion in ch oosing a less se v e re sancti on, dism i ssa l was perm i ssibl e without further war ni ngo r o pp ortu nityt o c ur e i n l i g hto fthe war ni ng o n the c o m pl aintf o r m a nd the di st ric t co ur t’ s fi ndi ng o ffr a ud
. The fi ve dism iss al s were sancti ons f ordi sob eying a court ru le, not rul i ngs that the sui ts f ai l ed to st ate a cl ai m or w er e fri vol ous o r m al i ci ous ( w hi ch r equi re s a fi nd i ng, ab s e nth e r e , o fa n i nt e ntt o h a r a s s , s ee Lin dell v
. M cCal l um , 352 F. 3d 1107, 1109- 10 ( 7th C i r. 2003) ) under 28 U
. S. C
. § 1915(e)(2) (B ) o r 28 U
. S. C
. § 1915A
. Th erefore H osk i ns i ncurs no s tr i kes , se e 2 8 U.S
. C. § 1 915( g) ; T u r l ey v. G aetz , 6 25 F
. 3d 10 05, 1 00 8- 09 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) , b ut re m ain s liab le for all ap p lica b le filin g fe es . A FFI RMED . 1- 20- 11