Nonprecedential Disposition

* Afterexaminingthebriefsandtherecord,wehaveconcludedthatoralargumentis
unnecessary.Thus,theappealissubmittedonthebriefsandtherecord.SeeF ED. R. APP. P.
34( A )(2).
United States Court of Appeals
FortheSeventhCircuit
Chicago,Illinois60604
SubmittedOctober8,2009 *
DecidedOctober9,2009
Before
FRANKH.EASTERBROOK,ChiefJudge
RICHARDA.POSNER,CircuitJudge
TERENCET.EVANS,CircuitJudge
No.091172
CHRISJ.JACOBS,III,
PlaintiffAppellant,
v.
MATTHEWFRANKandHSU
PERSONNEL,
DefendantsAppellees.
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict
CourtfortheEasternDistrictof
Wisconsin.
No.06C0338
RudolphT.Randa
Judge.
ORDER
ChrisJacobs,aWisconsinprisoner,broughtthiscivilrightscomplaintagainst
currentandformeremployeesoftheWisconsinDepartmentofCorrections.Thedistrict
courtdismissedtheactionunderF ED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(a)(v)becauseJacobsfailedto
complywithdiscoveryorders.Weaffirm.
NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION
Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith
Fed.R.App.P.32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No.091172 Page2
JacobsallegedthatdefendantsviolatedhisEighthAmendmentrightsbyrestricting
hisdietanddenyinghimmedicaltreatment.Indevelopingtheirdefense,defendants
soughtaccesstoJacobs’smedicalrecords,whichrequiredhiswrittenconsent.SeeW IS .
S TAT. §§ 146.81, 51.30. DefendantsmailedJacobsanauthorizationformwithinstructionsto
signandreturn.Althoughanaccompanyingletterwarnedhimthatnoncompliancewould
leadtothefilingofamotiontodismisstheaction,Jacobsdidnotrespond.Defendants
laterrenewedtheirrequest,butJacobsrefusedtosigntheformunlessthedefendants
agreedtomakethe“wholemedicalrecord/filepartoftherecordinthiscaseandcopiesto
me.”Athirdrequestalsowentunheeded.
Finally,morethanayearlater,thedistrictcourtinstructedthedefendantstosend
Jacobsanauthorizationformforthefourthandfinaltime,warningJacobsthathiscase
wouldbedismissedifhedidnotsignandreturntheformwithintendays.Jacobsdidnot
signandreturntheform.Insteadhefiledtwomotions—onetocompeldefendantstocopy
hismedicalrecords,andasecondtohavehismedicalrecordsinspectedincamera.The
districtcourtfoundthatJacobsfailedtocomplywithitsexplicitdirectionsanddismissed
thecaseunderF ED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(a)(v).
Jacobs’sspartanappealsbriefglossesoverthecourt’sRule37(b)dismissal,and
urgesinsteadthatthedistrictcourtimproperlydismissedhiscasewithoutregardforhis
indigentstatus.Heclaimsthatthedistrictcourtactedarbitrarilybyrequiringhimtomake
hismedicalrecordsavailable,butnotensuringthatcopiesoftheserecordswouldbe
availabletohim(hesayshecannotaffordthecopyingfees).Jacobscannotshow,however,
thatthedistrictcourt’sRule37(b)dismissalwasanabuseofdiscretion.Onfourseparate
occasions,herefusedtocomplywithcleardiscoveryrequestsanddisregardedcourt
warningsabouttheconsequencesofnoncompliance.Thoseconsequenceswerenot
contingentuponthedefendantsprovidinghimwithacopyofhismedicalrecords.Having
identifiedapatternofdiscoveryabuse,thecourtactedwellwithinitsdiscretionby
dismissingthecasetosparedefendantsfurtherdelay.SeeNewmanv.Metro.Pier&
ExpositionAuth.,962F.2d589,591(7thCir.1992);AuraLamp&Lighting,Inc.v.Int’lTrading
Corp.,325F.3d903,910(7thCir.2003).Evenproselitigantsmustabidebyprocedural
rules.Collinsv.Illinois,554F.3d693,697(7thCir.2009).
Accordingly,weAFFIRMthedistrictcourt’sjudgment.

-- 2 of 2 --