Civil Procedure – dismissal — want of prosecution

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Procedure – dismissal — want of prosecution

Where the defendant was not prejudiced, it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss a case for want of prosecution.

“In his postjudgment motion Sroga offered a plausible reason why he did not receive the court’s warning. He indicated that his indigent status limited his ability to gain access to the internet to follow the court’s electronic docket. He claimed that he had been diligently following his case through the use of a court-supplied computer station in the Chicago federal courthouse because he had no other means of accessing the court’s docket. But that method of keeping track of his case ended with his absence from the Chicago area on an out-of-town work assignment. He also noted that his mother, whose residence he used for his mailing address, is not fond of his involvement in litigation, and that she may have prevented him from receiving mailings from the court during the period he was away from Chicago. If true, these reasons suggest that Sroga was not intentionally delaying proceedings or disobeying court orders. The district judge was not persuaded by Sroga’s excuses, saying ‘we’re not talking about you missing one thing; we’re talking about you missing like three or four things,’ without explaining why he doubted Sroga’s explanation. But Sroga’s absence (and possible meddling from his mother) accounted for both instances of unreceived mail, which in turn led to what was actually just one missed deadline. Furthermore, Sroga did have a history of compliance with other deadlines in this and prior litigation. Generally a single missed deadline or status hearing does not support dismissal for want of prosecution. See, e.g., Johnson, 2013 WL 2475761 at *1; McInnis v. Duncan, 697 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2012); Kruger v. Apfel, 214 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 2000). Additionally, the defendants had not been served before the case was dismissed, so they suffered no apparent prejudice from the delay. We conclude that further proceedings are necessary to ensure that Sroga’s claims are resolved properly.”

Reversed and Remanded.

12-1525 Sroga v. Huberman

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kennelly, J., Per Curiam.