## 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. 12

- 3588 & 12

- 3906 J ACQ UELI NE J OH NS ON, Plai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant, v. C H I CA GO B OARD O F E DU CA T I ON, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Di v isi on. No . 12 C3670

—MatthewF. Kenn ell y, Ju dge
.
S UB MI TT ED M AY 30, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UNE 10, 2013

Befo re E A S T E R B R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd F LA UM a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . J acquel i ne J ohnson fi l ed thi s e m plo ym entd iscrim ination suit ag a in s t h e r fo r m e r em p lo yer, Ch i cago ’ s s choolsy ste m . The di str i ct c ourtgr anted her m oti on to ap pear in form a paup er is a nd s eta s ta tu s hear i ng f orOctobe r 18, 20 12. The order se tti ng the date w ar n ed Joh n so n th at fail u re to ap p ea r c ou ld res u lt in th e suit’s i m m ed iate d ism issal. J ohn son did not ap p ear,2 N os. 12

- 3588 & 12

- 3906 and the di str i ct j ud ge dism i ss ed the sui t f or thw i th f or l ack of pros ecuti on. J ohnson i m m edi ate l y fi l ed a m oti on to rein st at e, co n te n d in g t h at sh e h ad n ot be en n ot ified of th e O c to b er 18 h ea rin g. T h e jud g e d en ied th is m oti on, o bser vi ng tha t J ohnson had agr eed to r ecei ve el ec tr o ni c no ti ce o fo r der s an d de ci si o ns , a nd tha t th e cou rt had pr o vi ded th e sa m e k i nd o fno ti ce abo ut the o rderd ism i ssi ng the sui t, an o rderJ ohnson adm i ts re cei vi ng. On a ppea l, J o hns o n r en ews he r c o nt en ti o n tha t sh e d id n ot receive n o t ic e. Y et th e d istri ct cou rt’s contra ry fi nd i ng i s no t cl ear l y e rr oneo us. An o r d e r d i s mi s s i n g a s u i ta s a s a n c t i o n f o rn o tc o o per ati ng i n i ts pros ec u ti on i s r evi ew ed f orabuse o fdi sc re tio n . See , e.g., N at i onal Hoc key L e aguev. M etropol i t an H oc key Cl ub, Inc . , 42 7 U.S
. 63 9 ( 1976 )
. But l ega l i ssues r e c e i v e a n i n d e p e n d e n t a p p e l l a t e d e c i s i o n, a n d we th in k t h at th e d ist ric t jud ge e r r e d b y d ism iss in g th e s u it f o r a l i t i g a n t ’ s s i n g l e mi s s t e p , wi t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g t he possibi l i ty ofal ter nati ve sancti ons. ( The or der e nter ed in t h is case read s, in full : “Statu s hea ring held

. Plaintiff f ai l s to a ppea r . Ca se i s di smi ss ed f or wanto fpr o se cutio n .”) W e h av e h eld rep ea te d ly th at sa n c tio n s s h o u ld fit t h e m isc on d u c t, an d in p ar tic u lar th at d ism iss al is not the a pp ro pri ate r esponse to a l i ti ga n t’s er ro rs ( or eve n m i sco nd uct) thatdo n ot a pp earto be ser i ous o r re p ea te d . See , e.g., Ba l l v . C h i ca go , 2 F.3d 752 (7th C ir. 19 93 ); K rug er v. A pfel , 214 F. 3d 784, 787 ( 7th C ir . 2 000); Bolt v
. Lo y, 227 F.3d 85 4, 85 6– 57 (7t h C ir. 20 00 ); FM Indu s t r i e s , Inc . v. Ci t i co rp Cr e di tSe r vi ce s , Inc . , 6 1 4 F
. 3 d 3 35N os. 12

- 3588 & 12

- 3906 3 ( 7 th C ir. 20 10 ); K asalo v. Harris & Harris, Ltd

. , 6 5 6 F. 3d 557, 5 6 1 ( 7 t h Ci r . 2 0 1 1 )
. T he di s t r i c tj ud g e di d no t expla i n w hy a si ngl e m i sse d conf er ence p ro du ced an im m ed iat e d ism iss al. The j ud ge m ay h ave und er sto od Ba ll and i ts su cce ssors a s h o l di ng n o m or e tha n tha ta wa r ni ngmus tp r e c e de a di sm i ssa l f orwant ofpro secuti on. The j ud ge gave su cha war ni ng . ButBa ll an d o u r lat er d ec isio n s h old m o r e th antha t. The y s ta nd f o r the pr o po si ti o n tha t th e p u n ish m en t m u st fit th e c rim e. Se e, e.g ., FM Ind ustries , 61 4 F .3d at 33 8– 39 . A co n c l u s i o n th at d ism iss al is ne cess ary beca us e othe r rem ed ies have f ail ed ( or are bo u n d t o f a i l ) r e c e i v e s d e f e r e n t i a l a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w. But a di str i ct c ourtthatdi sm i sse s a s u it i m m edi ate l y a f ter the fi rs t pr obl em , witho ut expl or ing o thero pti ons or say i ng wh y they would n ot be f rui tful, co m m i ts a l e g a l e r r o r . T hi s s ui tmus tb e r e i ns t a t e d. R EV ER S ED AN D R EMAND ED

6- 10- 13