In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________

Nos. 05-3291, 06-1766 & 06-2151

GEORGE D. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,

RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD, and

TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS

INTERNATIONAL UNION (TCU),

Defendants-Appellees.

____________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Nos. 04 C 1870, 05 C 2193 & 05 C 3834—Elaine E. Bucklo,

James B. Moran and Ronald A. Guzman, Judges.

____________

SUBMITTED APRIL 13, 2007—DECIDED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007

____________

Before BAUER, POSNER and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Appellees Union Pacific Railroad Co.

(“Union Pacific”) and the Transportation Communications

Union (“TCU”) asked us to sanction George Mitchell or

to dismiss this appeal for Mr. Mitchell’s failure to comply with the rules and orders of this court. After considering Mr. Mitchell’s response to the appellees’ request,

we agree that dismissal is warranted.

These appeals arise out of a number of disputes Mr.

Mitchell has with his employer, Union Pacific. Unsatisfied
2 Nos. 05-3291, 06-1766 & 06-2151

with the results of his arbitration hearing on those disputes, Mr. Mitchell filed suit against Union Pacific, TCU,

his union representative, and the National Railroad

Adjustment Board (“NRAB”), the arbitration panel that

handled the matters. The district courts granted motions

by the defendants for dismissal and summary judgment

on all of Mr. Mitchell’s claims, reasoning that a number of

them were time-barred, precluded by the limited jurisdiction afforded federal courts by the Railway Labor Act, 45

U.S.C. § 153(q), or otherwise meritless, and that the National Railroad Adjustment Board was not a suitable party.

See Pokuta v. Trans. World Airlines, 191 F.3d 834, 839 (7th

Cir. 1999); Mitchell v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 408 F.3d 318, 320

(7th Cir. 2005). On appeal, we consolidated the cases for

review and summarily affirmed the portion of the district court’s decision dismissing the NRAB from the case.

Dismissal is warranted only in those situations where

a litigant disregards the court’s orders or engages in

unreasonable delay. Kruger v. Apfel, 214 F.3d 784, 787 (7th

Cir. 2000). In this instance, Mr. Mitchell has not complied

with our orders regarding the size of his brief. He first

requested permission to file an oversized brief after we

consolidated his cases on appeal. We denied that request

and a second one, which Mr. Mitchell filed one month

later. After each denial we granted Mr. Mitchell additional

time to file his brief. Notably, the second time we

denied his request we warned Mr. Mitchell that his failure to file a rule-compliant brief by the next due date

could result in the dismissal of his appeal.

But instead of filing a rule-compliant brief on the due

date Mr. Mitchell moved again to file an oversized brief.

Two days later, Mr. Mitchell attempted to withdraw that

motion because, he asserted, he realized the brief was

not actually oversized. In response to these motions,
Nos. 05-3291, 06-1766 & 06-2151 3

appellees Union Pacific and TCU suggest that dismissal

of the appeal is appropriate in light of Mr. Mitchell’s

refusal to comply with our orders. See Bolt v. Loy, 227 F.3d

854, 856 (7th Cir. 2000). We asked Mr. Mitchell to show

cause as to why his appeal should not be dismissed.

Mr. Mitchell responds that he reasonably misunderstood

the requirements of the type-volume limitation. See Fed. R.

App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). In particular, he contends that

because the rules do not specify whether case names

outside of the table of authorities count toward the

word limit nor do the rules set a page limit for a consolidated brief, he mistakenly chose a more expansive interpretation of the rules. But the reasonableness of this

interpretation is suspect, particularly in light of Mr.

Mitchell’s familiarity with this court’s procedures. Mitchell,

408 F.3d at 318. And tellingly, in his response to the

show cause order he asks permission, now for the

fourth time, to file an oversized brief. This court has

fulfilled its obligation to warn Mr. Mitchell that his failure

to file a rule-compliant brief could result in the dismissal

of his appeal. And we note that a litigant’s pro se status

does not afford license to disobey orders from this court.

See Downs v. Westphal, 78 F.3d 1252, 1257 (7th Cir. 1996). In

light of our warning and Mr. Mitchell’s reluctance to

heed our orders, dismissal is an appropriate remedy.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.

APPEAL DISMISSED
4 Nos. 05-3291, 06-1766 & 06-2151

A true Copy:

Teste:

 _____________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—9-5-07