Kenneth Oliver v. Richard B. Gramley, Warden, 200 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Kenneth Oliver v. Richard B. Gramley, Warden, 200 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Swiecichowski v. DOC (wied, 2024-12-30)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Swiecichowski v. DOC
E.D. Wis. · 2024 · confidence medium
See Ayoubi v. Dart, 640 F. App’x 524, 528 (7th Cir. 2016) (encouraging courts to consider lesser sanctions before imposing more stringent ones like dismissal (citing Rivera v. Drake, 767 F.3d 685 , 686–87 (7th Cir. 2014); Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541 , 543–44 (7th Cir. 2011); and Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999))); Hoskins, 633 F.3d at 544 (noting that financial sanctions are not as effective against indigent parties).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bishop v. Chicago Police Department, The
N.D. Ill. · 2023 · confidence medium
Martin v. Redden, 34 F.4th 564, 568 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Phillips v. Kelley Chevy, LLC (2×)
N.D. Ind. · 2022 · confidence medium
“Although dismissal with prejudice is a permissible judicial sanction for fraud on the court, the general rule is that before dismissing a suit with prejudice as a sanction for misconduct a court should consider the adequacy of a less severe sanction.” Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doe v. Law School Admission Council, Inc.
N.D. Ill. · 2021 · confidence medium
“Although dismissal with prejudice is a permissible judicial sanction for fraud on the court, the general rule is that before dismissing a suit with prejudice as a sanction for misconduct a court should consider the adequacy of a less severe sanction . . . .” Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted) (but holding, nevertheless, that the district court was not required to consider a lesser sanction than dismissal where “the plaintiff’s fraud is criminal in character and would if undetected destroy a legitimate and dispositive defense”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sabina Burton v. Board of Regents of the Unive
7th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Matter of Met-L-Wood Corp., 861 F.2d 1012, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988) (noting only that ex parte contact by a judge is not fraud on the court); Domanus v. Lewicki, 742 F.3d 290, 302 (7th Cir. 2014) (concluding that “mosaic” of discovery abuses warranted grant of default judgment but not mentioning “fraud on the court”); Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999) (not mentioning discovery violations).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sabina Burton v. Board of Regents of the Unive
7th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Matter of Met-L-Wood Corp., 861 F.2d 1012, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988) (noting only that ex parte contact by a judge is not fraud on the court); Domanus v. Lewicki, 742 F.3d 290, 302 (7th Cir. 2014) (concluding that “mosaic” of discovery abuses warranted grant of default judgment but not mentioning “fraud on the court”); Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999) (not mentioning discovery violations).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sabina Burton v. Board of Regents of the Unive
7th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Matter of Met-L-Wood Corp., 861 F.2d 1012, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988) (noting only that ex parte contact by a judge is not fraud on the court); Domanus v. Lewicki, 742 F.3d 290, 302 (7th Cir. 2014) (concluding that “mosaic” of discovery abuses warranted grant of default judgment but not mentioning “fraud on the court”); Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999) (not mentioning discovery violations).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kixsports, LLC v. Munn
N.C. Bus. Ct. · 2019 · confidence medium
App’x 598, 599, 602 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming sanction of dismissal based on false affidavit); Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999) (same). 42.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Firas Ayoubi v. Thomas Dart
7th Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Rivera v. Drake, 767 F.3d 685, 686-87 (7th Cir.2014); Hoskins, 633 F.3d at 543-44 ; Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gregory McInnis v. Arne Duncan
7th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
In general, we have recommended that district courts consider less severe sanctions before dismissing for failure to prosecute, see Kasalo, 656 F.3d at 562 ; Aura Lamp & Lighting, Inc. v. Int’l Trading Corp., 325 F.3d 903 , 908 (7th Cir. 2003); Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999), but judges do not abuse their discretion by declining to employ “progressive discipline,” Johnson, 34 F.3d at 468 (noting that such a rule would effectively grant “each litigant one opportunity to disregard the court’s schedule without fear of penalty”); Ball, 2 F.3d at 756 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McInnis v. Duncan
7th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
In general, we have recommended that district courts consider less severe sanctions before dismissing for failure to prosecute, see Kasalo, 656 F.3d at 562 ; Aura Lamp & Lighting, Inc. v. Int’l Trading Corp., 325 F.3d 903 , 908 (7th Cir. 2003); Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir.1999), but judges do not abuse their discretion by declining to employ “progressive discipline,” Johnson, 34 F.3d at 468 (noting that such a rule would effectively grant “each litigant one opportunity to disregard the court’s schedule without fear of penalty”); Ball, 2 F.3d at 756 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kasalo v. Harris & Harris, Ltd.
7th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
We have said that courts should consider other sanctions before dismissal, see Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir.1999), and we have required courts to warn a plaintiff that she is on thin ice before the case is thrown out, e.g., Gabriel, 514 F.3d at 737 ; Sharif v. Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd., 376 F.3d 720 , 725 (7th Cir.2004); Aura Lamp, 325 F.3d at 908 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hoskins v. Dart
7th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
The court correctly acknowledged that it should generally consider lesser sanctions before dismissing a complaint with prejudice, citing Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Heard, Delbert v. Blagojevich, Rod R. (2×) also: Cited "see"
7th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir.2002); Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) REP MCR Realty, L.L.C. v. Lynch (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.D. Ill. · 2005 · confidence medium
“Although dismissal with prejudice is a permissible judicial sanction for fraud on the court, the general rule is that before dismissing a suit with prejudice as a sanction for misconduct a court should consider the adequacy of a less severe sanction.” Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir.1999) (internal citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) First Bank of Marietta, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant (2×)
1st Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Moreover, as the Seventh Circuit observed, district courts need the discretion “to craft sanctions because the power to sanction is essential for them to manage heavy case loads and to protect the interests of litigants.” Graham, 2000 WL 717093 , at *3 (citing Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir.1999)).
cited Cited "see" Say it Visually, Inc v. Real Estate Education Company, Inc.
N.D. Ill. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999).
cited Cited "see" Anthony Martin v. Timothy Redden
7th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999).
cited Cited "see" Michael Johnson v. Jason Dalke
7th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases).
cited Cited "see" Michael Johnson v. Jason Dalke
7th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Oliver v. Gramley , 200 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases).
discussed Cited "see" Lonnie Jackson v. Patrick Murphy
7th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
“As a fraud on the court, perjury may warrant the sanction of dismissal,” Montano v. City of Chicago, 535 F.3d 558, 564 (7th Cir.2008); see Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir.1999); Brown v. Oil States Skagit Smatco, 664 F.3d 71, 77-79 (5th Cir.2011) (perjury); Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins.
discussed Cited "see" William Cox v. Daniel McBride
7th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
If the applicant is obdurate in refusing to sign, the district court can dismiss the petition with prejudice, as in any other case of failure to prosecute, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (which provides that dismissal is with prejudice unless otherwise indicated by the court); see Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465 (7th Cir.1999); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (7th Cir.1997); Angulo-Alvarez v. Aponte de la Torre, 170 F.3d 246, 252 (1st Cir.1999); Aziz v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir.1994); Nassau County Ass’n of Insurance Agents, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 497 F.2d 1151, 11…
discussed Cited "see" Cox, William v. McBride, Daniel R.
7th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
P. 41(b) (which provides that dismissal is with prejudice unless otherwise indicated by the court); see Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 1999); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 , 1056- 57 (7th Cir. 1997); Angulo-Alvarez v. Aponte de la Torre, 170 F.3d 246, 252 (1st Cir. 1999); Aziz v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1994); Nassau County Ass’n of Insurance Agents, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 497 F.2d 1151, 1154 (2d Cir. 1974).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Tommy Ortiz v. Deputy Sheriff Frederick Jefferson and Lieutenant Damita Delitz
N.D. Ill. · 2026 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Sanders v. Melvin, 25 F.4th 475 , 481, 485–86 (7th Cir. 2022); see also Oliver v. Gram- ley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kelly Ebmeyer v. Adam Brock
7th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir. 1999) (although dismissal with prejudice is a permissible judicial sanction for fraud on the court, the general rule is that before dismissing a suit with prejudice as a sanction for misconduct a court should consider the adequacy of a less severe sanction).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Coastal Environmental Group, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir.1999) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus as a sanction for the petitioner’s submission to the court of a perjurious affidavit and a forged certificate of service, an action that the appeals court characterized as “criminal in character,” “egregious, inexcusable, and destructive”); Gonzalez v. Trinity Marine Grp., Inc., 117 F.3d 894, 898-99 (5th Cir.1997) (affirming the district court’s conclusion that the alteration and fabrication of evidence — an audio recording — was conduct tha…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Gilmer v. Colorado Institute of Art
10th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465, 466 (7th Cir.1999); Gonzalez v. Trinity Marine Group, Inc., 117 F.3d 894, 898-99 (5th Cir.1997); Pope v. Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kenneth OLIVER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Richard B. GRAMLEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
99-1219.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Dec 29, 1999.
200 F.3d 465
Kenneth Oliver (submitted), Galesburg, IL, for Petitioner-Appellant Pro Se., William L. Browers (submitted), Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Respondent-Appellee.
Posner, Bauer, Cudahy.
Cited by 28 opinions  |  Published
POSNER, Chief Judge.

The district judge dismissed Oliver’s petition for habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2254) with prejudice (compare Demarest v. Price, 130 F.3d 922, 939 (10th Cir.1997)), on the ground that he had committed a fraud on the court, and denied Oliver’s request for a certificate of appealability, and he renews the request with us.

When the state sought to dismiss Oliver’s petition for habeas corpus on the ground that he had failed to petition the Supreme Court of Illinois for leave to appeal, he came back with an affidavit swearing that he had given prison officials the petition to file, and he also submitted what appeared to be a certificate of service. The district judge thought the certificate a forgery and the affidavit perjurious, and Oliver, while denying that he intended to commit perjury or deceive the court, does not deny that the certificate was forged (by Oliver’s father) and the affidavit false.

Although dismissal with prejudice is a permissible judicial sanction for fraud on the court, Kovilic Construction Co. v. Missbrenner, 106 F.3d 768, 773 (7th Cir.1997); Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings Co. v. Canam Steel Corp., 979 F.2d 685 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam); Nichols v. Klein Tools, Inc., 949 F.2d 1047 (8th Cir. 1991); Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1122 (1st Cir.1989); Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Industries, Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir.1983), the general rule is that before dismissing a suit with prejudice as a sanction for misconduct a court should consider the adequacy of a less severe sanction, Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752, 758 (7th Cir.1993); English v. Cowell, 969 F.2d 465, 473 (7th Cir.1992); Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., supra, 892 F.2d at 1118; see also Kapco Mfg. Co. v. C&O Enterprises, Inc., 886 F.2d 1485,1496 (7th Cir.1989), and there is no indication that the district court did that here. But we do not think that such consideration is necessary in a case in which the plaintiffs fraud is criminal in character and would if undetected destroy a legitimate and dispositive defense. Cf. Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Industries, Inc., supra, 709 F.2d at 591. Such behavior is so egregious, inexcusable, and destructive that no lesser sanction than dismissal with prejudice could be adequate. See Nichols v. Klein Tools, Inc., supra, 949 F.2d at 1049; Anderson v. Beatrice Foods Co., 900 F.2d 388, 396 (1st Cir.1990); Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., supra, 892 F.2d at 1122; Brockton Savings Bank v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 771 F.2d 5, 11-12 (1st Cir.1985); cf. C.K.S. Engineers, Inc. v. White Mountain Gypsum Co., 726 F.2d 1202, 1209 (7th Cir. 1984).

The request for a certificate for appealability is therefore

Denied.