Donald R. Bianchi v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 17, 2025*
Decided July 17, 2025
Before
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1169
DONALD R. BIANCHI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 24 CV 3970
Jeremy C. Daniel,
Judge.
O R D E R
Donald Bianchi, a claimant seeking Social Security disability benefits, appeals the
dismissal of his lawsuit for failure to comply with court directives. We affirm.
* 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. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 25-1169 Page 2
Bianchi applied, unsuccessfully, for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income. When the Appeals Council denied review in August
2021, it informed Bianchi that he had 60 days to file a civil action in district court. See 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). He received a 30-day extension in December 2021 but did not file a
complaint with the district court until May 2024. The Commissioner of Social Security
then moved to dismiss the complaint on untimeliness grounds. The district court agreed
with the Commissioner and dismissed the complaint. But the court permitted Bianchi to
amend his complaint to add allegations that might warrant equitable tolling. Bianchi
failed, however, to file an amended complaint within the specified deadline, so the
court dismissed the suit with prejudice.
On appeal, Bianchi raises two arguments, both unavailing. He first asserts that
the district court erred in dismissing his complaint because he complied with the court’s
instructions and “met all deadlines.” Yet he did not heed the court’s direction to amend
his complaint and explain how he was prevented from filing a civil action in the
preceding two years. A district court has inherent power to manage its docket, and with
that power comes the discretionary authority to dismiss a case for failure to obey
reasonable orders. Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 1104 (7th Cir. 2022). We are mindful of
Bianchi’s status as a pro se litigant, but he is still required to follow the court’s orders.
See DJM Logistics, Inc. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 39 F.4th 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2022).
Bianchi also asserts that he suffers from several mental illnesses and should be
given another opportunity to file an amended complaint. But he waived this argument
by not raising it in the district court. Johnson v. Prentice, 29 F.4th 895, 903 (7th Cir. 2022).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --