Titus Henderson v. Mike Donovan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 7, 2025*
Decided November 7, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1759
TITUS HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MIKE DONOVAN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 21-cv-562-jdp
James D. Peterson,
Chief Judge.
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 4 --

Nos. 24-1759, 24-1760, 24-1761 Page 2
No. 24-1760
TITUS HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JODIE PERTTU, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 23-cv-346-jdp
James D. Peterson,
Chief Judge.
No. 24-1761
TITUS HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RACHEL MATUSHAK, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 23-cv-385-jdp
James D. Peterson,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Titus Henderson, a Wisconsin prisoner, appeals three dismissed civil-rights cases
against prison officials. Before these suits, Henderson had already “struck out” under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and had been sanctioned for repeated misjoinder of claims and
parties. After finding Henderson made false statements to the court in a consolidated
evidentiary hearing, the district court sanctioned Henderson by dismissing his pending
cases and imposing a two-year filing bar for civil suits. Because the district court did not
abuse its discretion in doing so, we affirm.
These cases arise from Henderson’s incarceration at Green Bay Correctional
Institution and concern unrelated events during which he alleges prison officials
violated his constitutional rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In June 2023, Henderson moved
for a default judgment in each case. He asserted in a sworn declaration that—based on
personal knowledge and video evidence—three assistant attorneys general representing

-- 2 of 4 --

Nos. 24-1759, 24-1760, 24-1761 Page 3
the defendants directed a prison official to confiscate and destroy his legal materials
while he was in segregation. The defendants responded by moving for sanctions against
Henderson for fabricating the conspiracy.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing in February 2024 to resolve the
motions. Before the hearing, the court denied a motion by Henderson to appear in
person, so Henderson and some state witnesses appeared remotely. Henderson testified
that he did not actually have personal knowledge or video evidence supporting his
allegations, as he had asserted in his sworn declaration, but that a prison officer had
told him about the scheme. The state presented the officer in question and nine other
individuals Henderson had implicated, all of whom denied the allegations. The district
court gave Henderson an opportunity to cross-examine each witness. Henderson did
not object to appearing pro se, did not identify any technical issues when cross-
examining witnesses remotely, and did not object when the district court curtailed
certain lines of questioning.
The district court denied Henderson’s motions for default judgment and granted
the defendants’ motion for sanctions after finding that Henderson made multiple false
statements to the court. Because his three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
and other prior sanctions had failed to deter his false statements, the district court
dismissed Henderson’s pending cases and imposed a two-year filing bar without an
imminent-danger exception.
On appeal, Henderson first challenges the sanctions, arguing that the two-year
filing bar without an imminent-danger exception violates the three-strike rule.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Act restricts prisoners who have accrued three dismissals
for frivolous litigation from filing in forma pauperis except in cases involving imminent
danger of serious physical harm. Id. But it does not limit district courts’ power to
sanction other conduct. See Greyer v. Ill. Dep't of Corr., 933 F.3d 871, 880 (7th Cir. 2019).
And a district court may use its inherent power to impose a severe sanction—including
dismissal with prejudice—after finding a party abused the judicial process or otherwise
acted in bad faith. Fuery v. City of Chicago, 900 F.3d 450, 463 (7th Cir. 2018).
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and the sanction it
chose for abuse of discretion. Martin v. Redden, 34 F.4th 564, 568 (7th Cir. 2022). The
finding that Henderson lied to the court was supported by the testimony of ten
witnesses and Henderson’s contradiction of his own declaration. There was no clear
error in the district court’s factual finding that Henderson was untruthful. The district
court found this severe sanction was necessary because prior sanctions had not deterred

-- 3 of 4 --

Nos. 24-1759, 24-1760, 24-1761 Page 4
Henderson’s fabrications. We have upheld similarly severe sanctions when lesser
sanctions would not effectively deter a litigant from lying to the court, see id. at 569, so
we see no abuse of discretion.
Next, Henderson challenges the fairness of the evidentiary hearing. He submits
that the district court should have granted his motion to appear in person at the
hearing. We review this decision for abuse of discretion. Perotti v. Quinones, 790 F.3d
712, 721 (7th Cir. 2015). The Act requires incarcerated plaintiffs bringing § 1983 claims to
appear remotely at pretrial proceedings to the extent practicable. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(f)(1);
Perotti, 790 F.3d at 723. Henderson provided no reason for the district court to conclude
his remote attendance was not practicable, so the court’s denial of his motion was well
within its discretion.
Henderson also argues that the district court erred by allowing technical issues
to interfere with his cross-examination, cutting off certain lines of questioning, and
failing to appoint counsel to represent him. But because he did not raise these
arguments in the district court, they are waived. See Bradley v. Village of University Park,
59 F.4th 887, 897 (7th Cir. 2023).
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --