NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwith ȱFed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1

United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604 SubmittedȱOctoberȱ8,ȱ2009* DecidedȱOctoberȱ9,ȱ2009 Before FRANKȱH.ȱEASTERBROOK,ȱChiefȱJudge ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱRICHARDȱA.ȱPOSNER,ȱCircuitȱJudge ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTERENCEȱT.ȱEVANS,ȱCircuitȱJudge No.ȱ09Ȭ1172 CHRISȱJ.ȱJACOBS,ȱIII, AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict PlaintiffȬAppellant, CourtȱforȱtheȱEasternȱDistrictȱof Wisconsin. v. No.ȱ06ȬCȬ0338 MATTHEWȱFRANKȱandȱHSU PERSONNEL, RudolphȱT.ȱRanda DefendantsȬAppellees. Judge.

OȱRȱDȱEȱR ChrisȱJacobs,ȱaȱWisconsinȱprisoner,ȱbroughtȱthisȱcivilȱrightsȱcomplaintȱagainst currentȱandȱformerȱemployeesȱofȱtheȱWisconsinȱDepartmentȱofȱCorrections.ȱȱTheȱdistrict courtȱdismissedȱtheȱactionȱunderȱFED.ȱR.ȱCIV.ȱP.ȱ37(b)(2)(a)(v)ȱbecauseȱJacobsȱfailedȱto complyȱwithȱdiscoveryȱorders.ȱȱWeȱaffirm.ȱȱ

* ȱAfterȱexaminingȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱtheȱrecord,ȱweȱhaveȱconcludedȱthatȱoralȱargumentȱis unnecessary.ȱȱThus,ȱtheȱappealȱisȱsubmittedȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP.

34(A)(2).

No.ȱ09Ȭ1172 Pageȱ2

JacobsȱallegedȱthatȱdefendantsȱviolatedȱhisȱEighthȱAmendmentȱrightsȱbyȱrestricting hisȱdietȱandȱdenyingȱhimȱmedicalȱtreatment.ȱȱInȱdevelopingȱtheirȱdefense,ȱdefendants soughtȱaccessȱtoȱJacobs’sȱmedicalȱrecords,ȱwhichȱrequiredȱhisȱwrittenȱconsent.ȱȱSeeȱWIS.

STAT.ȱ§§ȱ146.81,ȱ51.30.ȱȱDefendantsȱmailedȱJacobsȱanȱauthorizationȱformȱwithȱinstructionsȱto signȱandȱreturn.ȱȱAlthoughȱanȱaccompanyingȱletterȱwarnedȱhimȱthatȱnoncomplianceȱwould leadȱtoȱtheȱfilingȱofȱaȱmotionȱtoȱdismissȱtheȱaction,ȱȱJacobsȱdidȱnotȱrespond.ȱȱDefendants laterȱrenewedȱtheirȱrequest,ȱbutȱJacobsȱrefusedȱtoȱsignȱtheȱformȱunlessȱtheȱdefendants agreedȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱ“wholeȱmedicalȱrecord/fileȱpartȱofȱtheȱrecordȱinȱthisȱcaseȱandȱcopiesȱto me.”ȱȱAȱthirdȱrequestȱalsoȱwentȱunheeded.ȱ Finally,ȱmoreȱthanȱaȱyearȱlater,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱinstructedȱtheȱdefendantsȱtoȱsend Jacobsȱanȱauthorizationȱformȱforȱtheȱfourthȱandȱfinalȱtime,ȱwarningȱJacobsȱthatȱhisȱcase wouldȱbeȱdismissedȱifȱheȱdidȱnotȱsignȱandȱreturnȱtheȱformȱwithinȱtenȱdays.ȱȱJacobsȱdidȱnot signȱandȱreturnȱtheȱform.ȱȱInsteadȱheȱfiledȱtwoȱmotions—oneȱtoȱcompelȱdefendantsȱtoȱcopy hisȱmedicalȱrecords,ȱandȱaȱsecondȱtoȱhaveȱhisȱmedicalȱrecordsȱinspectedȱinȱcamera.ȱȱThe districtȱcourtȱfoundȱthatȱJacobsȱfailedȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱitsȱexplicitȱdirectionsȱandȱdismissed theȱcaseȱunderȱFED.ȱR.ȱCIV.ȱP.ȱ37(b)(2)(a)(v).ȱȱ Jacobs’sȱspartanȱappealsȱbriefȱglossesȱoverȱtheȱcourt’sȱRuleȱ37(b)ȱdismissal,ȱand urgesȱinsteadȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱimproperlyȱdismissedȱhisȱcaseȱwithoutȱregardȱforȱhis indigentȱstatus.ȱȱHeȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱactedȱarbitrarilyȱbyȱrequiringȱhimȱtoȱmake hisȱmedicalȱrecordsȱavailable,ȱbutȱnotȱensuringȱthatȱcopiesȱofȱtheseȱrecordsȱwouldȱbe availableȱtoȱhimȱ(heȱsaysȱheȱcannotȱaffordȱtheȱcopyingȱfees).ȱȱJacobsȱcannotȱshow,ȱhowever, thatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱRuleȱ37(b)ȱdismissalȱwasȱanȱabuseȱofȱdiscretion.ȱȱOnȱfourȱseparate occasions,ȱheȱrefusedȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱclearȱdiscoveryȱrequestsȱandȱdisregardedȱcourt warningsȱaboutȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱnoncompliance.ȱȱThoseȱconsequencesȱwereȱnot contingentȱuponȱtheȱdefendantsȱprovidingȱhimȱwithȱaȱcopyȱofȱhisȱmedicalȱrecords.ȱȱHaving identifiedȱaȱpatternȱofȱdiscoveryȱabuse,ȱtheȱcourtȱactedȱwellȱwithinȱitsȱdiscretionȱby dismissingȱtheȱcaseȱtoȱspareȱdefendantsȱfurtherȱdelay.ȱȱSeeȱNewmanȱv.ȱMetro.ȱPierȱ& ExpositionȱAuth.,ȱ962ȱF.2dȱ589,ȱ591ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1992);ȱAuraȱLampȱ&ȱLighting,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱInt’lȱTrading Corp.,ȱ325ȱF.3dȱ903,ȱ910ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2003).ȱȱEvenȱproȱseȱlitigantsȱmustȱabideȱbyȱprocedural rules.ȱȱCollinsȱv.ȱIllinois,ȱ554ȱF.3dȱ693,ȱ697ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009).

Accordingly,ȱweȱAFFIRMȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱjudgment.