Scot Cadeau v. MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 23, 2024 *
Decided January 24, 2024
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1887
SCOT CADEAU,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 22-cv-0505
Brett H. Ludwig,
Judge.
O R D E R
Scot Cadeau, a claimant seeking Social Security disability benefits, appeals the
dismissal of his lawsuit for failure to prosecute. The district court dismissed his case
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 23-1887 Page 2
after he failed to comply with court directives. See FED. R. C IV. P. 41(b). Because the
court appropriately exercised its discretion to dismiss the case, we affirm.
Cadeau has twice applied for disability benefits, alleging that he suffered from
post-traumatic stress disorder because of a motor vehicle accident in 1996. His first
application was denied in 2014; he did not challenge this decision in federal court. In
2016, he filed a similar but unsuccessful application based on the same period of
disability. In 2022, he sought judicial review of this determination, but he submitted a
brief—prepared and signed by his non-attorney representative—that asserted errors
only in the 2014 proceedings. The district court struck the brief on the ground that
Cadeau could not be represented in federal court by a nonlawyer. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
The court, however, invited Cadeau to submit a new brief that complied with federal
and local rules, as well as the court’s prior directive describing the necessary content of
briefs for Social Security appeals.
Cadeau resubmitted the same brief. The court rejected the filing and gave him
one more chance to file a brief that complied with court rules, warning him that his
failure to do so would result in the dismissal of his suit for failure to prosecute. When
Cadeau did not submit a brief by the deadline, the court dismissed his case sua sponte
for failure to prosecute. See FED. R. C IV. P. 41(b); E.D. WIS . C IV. R. 41(c).
Cadeau then filed a motion for reconsideration, in which he alluded to a double
bypass heart surgery and a change of address to Costa Rica. The court construed his
motion as arising under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and denied it, concluding
that Cadeau set forth no grounds for relief to disturb the judgment.
On appeal, Cadeau raises several narrow arguments, all meritless. He argues,
first, that the court failed to construe his complaint as challenging the 2014
determination denying his application. But this argument is doomed because any
challenge to the 2014 determination would be time-barred (applicants have only
60 days to commence a civil action challenging the Commissioner’s final decision,
see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), (h)). Second, Cadeau argues in his reply brief that the district
court wrongly struck his brief in 2022 because he had helped prepare it. But arguments
raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived, see White v. United States, 8 F.4th 547,
552 (7th Cir. 2021), and regardless, the court acted within its discretion to strike a brief
that was signed only by a nonlawyer—who in this case had since died. See Georgakis v.
Ill. State Univ., 722 F.3d 1075, 1077 (7th Cir. 2013) (“A nonlawyer can’t handle a case on
behalf of anyone except himself.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1654). Third, Cadeau challenges

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-1887 Page 3
the dismissal of his case based on the court’s failure to appreciate the severity of his
medical circumstances. But the court acted with care and patience in the steps it took
before dismissing this case—granting Cadeau multiple extensions to submit filings that
complied with court rules.
Last, Cadeau appears to request that we recruit counsel for him on appeal. But
based on our review of the relevant orders and submissions, we have determined that
any issues that could be raised are insubstantial and that further briefing would not be
helpful to the court’s consideration of the issues. See Taylor v. City of New Albany,
979 F.2d 87 (7th Cir, 1992); Mather v. Village of Mundelein, 869 F.2d 356, 357 (7th Cir.
1989).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --