an appellant should be given an opportunity to submit a statement of his grounds for appealing so that the district judge “can make a responsible assessment of the issue of good faith.”
How later courts described this case
- an appellant should be given an opportunity to submit a statement of his grounds for appealing so that the district judge “can make a responsible assessment of the issue of good faith.”
- providing that a good faith appeal is an appeal that “a reasonable person could suppose . . . has some merit” from a legal perspective
- “[J]udges do not abuse their discretion by declining to employ ‘progressive discipline.’”
- “There is no requirement to enter lesser sanctions before dismissing a case for lack of prosecution”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
SHAUN M. KOONTZ, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No.: 3:24-cv-3140-JEH
)
)
STEVEN KOTTEMAN and )
STEFANIE HOWARD, )
)
Defendants. )
Order
This cause is before the Court on Defendant Dr. Steven Kotteman’s motion
for sanctions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides, in relevant part: “If the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a
defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Id. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explained that “Rule 41(b)
serves not only to protect defendants but also to aid courts in keeping
administrative control over their own dockets and to deter other litigants from
engaging in similar dilatory behavior. The rule is an expression of an inherent
power . . . necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve
the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” 3 Penny Theater Corp. v. Plitt
Theaters, Inc., 812 F.2d 337, 340 (7th Cir. 1987) (internal quotations omitted).
In addition, Rule 16(f) authorizes the Court to sanction a party who “fails to
obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 16(f)(1)(C). And, the
Rule further states that the Court “may issue any just orders, including those
authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii),” in the face of such noncompliance.
Finally, Federal Rule 37 authorizes a district court to dismiss a case for
discovery violations or for bad faith conduct in litigation. Greviskes v. Universities
Research Ass’n, Inc., 417 F.3d 752, 759 (7th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted); Brown v.
Columbia Sussex Corp., 664 F.3d 182, 190 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding that a district court
may dismiss a case pursuant to Federal Rule 37 when the court finds “willfulness,
bad faith or fault on the part of the defaulting party.”). A district court may also
dismiss a cause under its inherent authority to manage its docket and an
individual case. Greviskes, 417 F.3d at 759.
However, the sanction of dismissal must be “proportionate to the
circumstances.” Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693, 696 (7th Cir. 2009). Dismissal under
Federal Rule 37 is a high bar. Ford v. Larson, 2021 WL 3513592, * 1 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 10,
2021). Although “dismissal is a harsh sanction[,] the ability of a court to wield that
authority is essential to the efficient management of heavy caseloads and the
protection of all litigants.” Ashworth v. McNeely, 2024 WL 1554842, * 3 (S.D. Ill. Apr.
10, 2024); McMahan v. Deutsche Bank AG, 892 F.3d 926, 932 (7th Cir. 2018) (“There
is no requirement to enter lesser sanctions before dismissing a case for lack of
prosecution”); McInnis v. Duncan, 697 F.3d 661, 665 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[J]udges do
not abuse their discretion by declining to employ ‘progressive discipline.’”).
In the instant case, Plaintiff Shaun Koontz has failed to comply fully with
his obligations to litigate this case that he filed. On April 29, 2025, the Court
dismissed Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Stephanie Howard based upon
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s March 10, 2025 Order and based upon
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations.
Now, Dr. Kotteman has moved for a dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim against
him. In his motion, Dr. Kottemen asserts that Plaintiff has not responded to his
discovery requests either. Moreover, Dr. Kotteman represents that he has not
received Plaintiff’s initial disclosures as ordered by the Court in the Scheduling
Order and in the Court’s March 10, 2025 Order. Finally, Dr. Kotteman notes that
Plaintiff has not provided an updated telephone number as ordered by the Court
in its March 10, 2025 Order.
Based upon the lack of any response to Defendants’ motions and the Court’s
Orders, it is clear that Plaintiff has abandoned this case. The Court warned Plaintiff
in its Scheduling Order and in its March 10, 2025 Order that the Court may
sanction him and may dismiss this case if he failed to comply with his discovery
obligations and with his obligations described in the Court’s Scheduling Order.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff has failed to make his initial disclosures, and he has failed
to respond to Dr. Kotteman’s discovery requests.
In addition, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Dr Kotteman’s motion for
sanctions, and the time for him to do so under the Court’s Local Rule has passed.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule 16(f), Federal
Rule 37(b), Federal Rule 41(b), and as a sanction for failing to comply with the
Court’s Orders.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
1. Defendant Steven Kotteman’s motion for sanctions [44] is
GRANTED.
2. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), Rule 16(f), Rule 37(b), and for failure to comply
with this Court’s Orders.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment, with
prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, in Defendants’ favor
and against Plaintiff.
4. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all entries
on the Court’s calendar are VACATED.
5. If he wishes to appeal this judgment, Plaintiff must file a notice of
appeal with this Court within thirty (30) days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(4).
6. If he wishes to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must identify the issues that he will
present on appeal to assist the Court in determining whether the appeal is taken
in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c); Celske v. Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398
(7th Cir. 1999) (an appellant should be given an opportunity to submit a
statement of his grounds for appealing so that the district judge “can make a
responsible assessment of the issue of good faith.”); Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d
626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000) (providing that a good faith appeal is an appeal that “a
reasonable person could suppose . . . has some merit” from a legal perspective).
7. If he chooses to appeal, Plaintiff will be liable for the $605.00
appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal.
It is so ordered.
Entered: May 22, 2025
s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. District Judge