# United States C ou rt of App eals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604
Submi tte d October 1, 2013 1 Deci ded October 1, 2013 Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROO K, Circ uit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WI LLIAMS , Circ uit Judge JOHN DANIEL TIND ER, Circ uit Judge
Nos. 13-1059 & 13-1219
ASU QUO ESANG, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. COO K CO UNTY, ILLINOI S, et al. , Defen dants-Appellees

. A p p e a l sf r o mt he Uni t e dS t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t fo rt he N o r t he rn D i s t r i c t o f I l l i n o i s, E a s t e rn

D iv i s i o n . No. 07 C 3540 Joan B. Gottschall, Judge

.

O R D E R Duri ng the course of t hi s li tigati on, Asuquo Esan g has acc used m or e than twenty-fi ve named defendants of partic i patin g inevent s that, he says, vi olated his rights un der t he Consti tution and Illinoi s law . For fi ve y ears the dis tr i ct court sor ted N O N P R E C E D E N T I A L D I S P O S I T I O N T o b e c i t e d o n l y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h F e d

. R

. A p p . P

. 3 2

. 1

A f t e r e x a m i n i n g t h e b r i e f s a n d t h e r e c o r d , w e h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t o r a l a r g u m e n t i s 1
u n n e c e s s a r y . T h e a p p e a l t h u s i s s u b m i t t e d o n t h e b r i e f s a n d t h e r e c o r d

. S e e F e d

. R

. A p p . P

. 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C )

.Nos. 13-1059 & 13-1219 Page 2

thro ugh Esang’s s hi fti ng allegat i ons before fi nally di smi ssing the case for fai lure to prosecute. See F E D
. R. C I V
. P. 41(b ). The c ourt also deni ed Esang’s moti on to set asi de the di smi ssal under F E D
. R. C I V
. P. 60(b) . He appeals b oth deci si ons, and w e have consoli dated the appeals for deci si on. We conclude that the court did not abus e i ts di screti on i n di smi ssing and declini ng to reo pen hi s cas e, and affi rm the j udgments. Esang was pro se when he fi led sui t inJune 2007. H i s i ni tial c omplaint menti ons that he was arreste d at the Daley Cent er in Chi cago inJuly 2005, bu t that fi rst v ersi on appears to fo cus on Esang’s subsequ ent detent i on at a stat e-operat ed mental-health faci li ty in Elgi n. The s ubject of hi s detention at the Elginfaci li ty is even more pr omi nent i n Esan g’s fi rst amended complai nt. After the di stric t court had recrui ted a succ essi on of lawyers to assi st hi m, however, Esang obt ai ned the court’ s approval t o sever all of hi s clai ms ari si ng from his detention i n Elgi n; those clai ms b ecame the subject of a separat e laws ui t. See Esang v. Cook County, No. 11 C 5479 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2012). Th e oper ative complai nt i n thi s law sui t is Esang’s s econd amended c omplai nt, whi ch w as drafted by couns el. In i t, Esang alleges that he was ass aulted twi ce by sheri ff’s d epart ment offi cers, fi rst when he was arr ested at t he Daley Center i n Jul y 2005 and later , i n Janu ary 2007, by three guards at t he Cook County j ai l. The di stric t court di smi ssed E sang’s federal clai ms aris i ng from t he inci dent at t he Daley Center , and all of hi s state-law c lai ms ari si ng from both in ci dents, as b arr ed by the appli cable s tatut es of li mi tations. Th e court lat er di smi ssed the remai ni ng federal clai m agai nst the jail guards for fai lure to prosecute. That was on Nov ember 7, 2012. Previously, duri ng the ini tial twen ty mo nths before counsel was recruited, the di stric t court twi ce had di smi ssed the s ui t for fai lure to pr osecute after Esang di sregar ded wri tte n warnings that mi ssing schedu led hearin gs or fai li ng to comply wi th court directi ves could result i n di smi ssal . Both t i mes the court reo pened the case on Es ang’s motion, and in response to his asserti on that o ne of the court’s schedu ling or ders never reached hi m, the judge admonis hed Esan g to update hi s address w i th the clerk of court. Then i n October 2012, after t he last of hi s three lawyers had wi thdrawn, Esang fai led to at tend a status hearin g. The court r esch eduled the hearing and, i n the wri tte n notic e mai led to Esang, warned hi m that next tim e the case w ould be di smi ssed i f he di d not at tend.
After the di smi ssal Esang asked that hi s law sui t be reins tate d for a t hi rd time; once againhe ass ert ed that t he di stric t court ’s sc heduling or ders had not been deli ver ed to him. At a heari ng on Nov ember 28, the court told himthat his motion would be taken under advis ement. The judge directed Esan g, inperson and i n wri tin g, to go t o the clerk’s offi ce and u pdate hi s address to assu re t hat he received future documen ts fromNos. 13-1059 & 13-1219 Page 3

the court . Esang i gnor ed thi s di rective, and for that reason the cour t deni ed hi s moti on to r eopen the lawsui t on December 4. He fi led a notic e of appeal on Decemb er 28, whi ch we docketed as appeal no. 13-1059. That sam e day Esang fi led a motion as kin g the cour t to r econsi der its D ecember 4 ruling. The court decli ned, reasoni ng that Esang had not offered any new reason t o set asi de the deci si on. He fi led a second n otice of appeal, whi ch w e docket ed as appeal no. 13-1219. Esang ch allenges the di smi ssal of hi s law sui t and the r efus al to v acate that deci si on. A dis tr i ct court has di screti on to di smi ss a c ase su a sponte for want o f prosecuti on as part o f i ts authority t o contr ol its d ocket and di spose of li tigati on i n an or derly and effi ci ent manner. Lin k v. Wa bash R.R. Co. , 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962); Harrington v. City of Chic ago , 433 F.3d 542, 548 (7th Cir. 2006). Es ang repeat edly ignored court o rder s, and h i s condu ct caus ed multi ple delays to t he court and the defendants despi te t he judge’s flexib i li ty and wi lli ngness to accomm odate his requests. Yet in hi s bri ef Esan g does not say how the di stric t court abus ed i ts di screti on except t o offer t he fri vo lous su gge sti on that t he judge should have used regis ter ed mai l to send sch eduli ng or ders. Mo stly hi s bri ef restate s allegations from hi s fi rst t wo complai nts, i n partic ular the allegat i ons concerni ng hi s detention in Elgi n that no lo nger ar e part of this li tigati on. An appellant’s bri ef mus t in clud e the part y’s contentions and reasons for t hem, wi th ci tations to author i ties and the parts of t he recor d on whi ch the appellant reli es. F E D
. R. A P P
. P. 28(a) (9); Correa v. White, 518 F.3d 516, 517 (7th Cir. 2008). G eneralized asserti ons of err or are not enough, Anderson v. Hardman , 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001), and even pro se liti gants must compl y wi th this rule, Correa , 518 F.3d at 517. S i nce none of the content i ons i n Esan g’s brief address the reasons the di stric t court gav e for di smi ssing hi s law sui t and then decli ni ng to resci nd that deci si on, he effecti vely concedes the corr ectness of those ruli ngs. Accordi ngly, bot h deci si ons are AF FIR MED.