United States of America v. Daquwon Richardson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 17, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1690
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DAQUWON RICHARDSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
No. 1:19-CR-365-JMS-TAB-1
Jane Magnus-Stinson,
Judge.
O R D E R
On December 20, 2022, we ordered Theodore J. Minch, counsel for appellant
Daquwon Richardson, to show cause for his “persistent failure to comply with filing
requirements and deadlines.” That order was prompted by Mr. Minch’s failure to timely
file paper copies of his reply brief. This was just the latest instantiation of Mr. Minch’s
dogged refusal to comply with the rules and orders of this court.
Mr. Minch regularly ignores deadlines to file paper copies of briefs. In Appeal
No. 16-3153, Mr. Minch failed to file a notice of appeal on behalf of his client. He then
failed to file the required transcripts, resulting in an order to show cause. He then failed
to timely file an opening brief, resulting in a second order to show cause. When he did
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-1690 Page 2
file an opening brief, the paper copies were not timely filed. Neither were the paper
copies of his reply brief.
In Appeal No. 20-1266, Mr. Minch failed to file paper copies of both his opening
and reply briefs. In both instances, the clerk’s office issued a deficiency notice setting a
new deadline for filing the paper copies. That new deadline was likewise ignored.
In Appeal No. 20-2572, Mr. Minch failed to timely file paper copies of his opening
brief. The paper copies were due on December 11, 2020. The Clerk’s Office issued a
deficiency notice on December 22, extending the deadline to December 29. Because the
paper copies had still not been received, the Clerk’s Office emailed Mr. Minch on
January 26 to find out where the paper copies were. Mr. Minch said that the paper copies
would be sent that week. They were not received until February 11. Having taken nothing
away from that experience, Mr. Minch then failed to timely file paper copies of his reply
brief. Those copies were due on March 5, a deadline extended in a March 22 deficiency
notice to March 29. Paper copies were not received until April 20. Separately, we issued
Mr. Minch an order to show cause for his failure to file the sentencing transcript in that
case—he was challenging the sentence imposed, see Cir. R. 30. We discharged that order
without further mention after a timely response was received.
In Appeal No. 21-3379, we issued an order to show cause to Mr. Minch for his
failure to prosecute the appeal. That was resolved when Mr. Minch filed an opening
brief—one that omitted the requisite short appendix. Yet again, paper copies of the
opening brief were not timely filed. Neither was Mr. Minch’s reply brief, nor the paper
copies thereof. Indeed, paper copies of the reply brief were never filed.
In Appeal No. 22-1008, Mr. Minch was ordered to file an amended jurisdictional
statement. Upon his failure to do so, we issued an order to show cause for. Mr. Minch
failed to timely respond to our order, so we issued a second order to show cause. We then
discharged both orders without further action. Mr. Minch once again failed to timely file
paper copies of the opening brief in that case, and he filed no reply brief whatsoever.
In Appeal No. 22-2181, Mr. Minch failed to timely file paper copies of the opening
brief, then missed the revised deadline set in the Clerk’s deficiency notice. And in Appeal
No. 22-2771, Mr. Minch failed to file a notice of appeal on behalf of his client
notwithstanding his obligation to do so. In sum, none of Mr. Minch’s ten most recent
appeals—all of them as appointed counsel—has been error-free.
Mr. Minch responded to our December 20 order noting this lengthy pattern and
practice with an insufficient response: the press of other matters and family issues
resulted in his missing the deadline to file paper copies of briefs in this case.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-1690 Page 3
On January 20, 2023, after oral arguments in this case, we issued another order to
show cause to Mr. Minch. Noting that his response to our December 20 order was, given
his repeated misconduct, unconvincing, we directed Mr. Minch to explain “why he
should not be subject to professional discipline.” We explained that the catalyst for that
order was, in addition to the persistent and continual violation of court orders, serious
deficiencies in Mr. Minch’s representation of Mr. Richardson. Our published opinion in
this appeal has more on that score. We gave Mr. Minch 21 days to respond to our
January 20 order.
Because past is prologue, Mr. Minch failed to comply. He still has not filed a
response to our order. Action is therefore necessary to protect litigants and the authority
and dignity of this court.
Under Rule 46(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, we may suspend,
disbar, or discipline a member of our bar “for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.”
This standard has been broadly construed to mean “conduct contrary to professional
standards that shows an unfitness to discharge continuing obligations to clients or the
courts[] or conduct inimical to the administration of justice.” In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634,
645 (1985). Sanctions decisions “should be carefully tailored to the circumstances of the
particular situation.” United States v. Stillwell, 810 F.2d 135, 136 (7th Cir. 1987). Several
factors are relevant, including the duty to protect litigants and the court from counsel’s
neglect or misfeasance, the need to deter similar conduct, and the effect of the sanction
on the lawyer involved. Id.; see also Waldon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Store No. 1655, 943
F.3d 818, 825 (7th Cir. 2019) (explaining the special need for sanctions when counsel’s
unbecoming conduct affects other litigants or misleads the court).
In light of all of the foregoing, it is therefore ORDERED that:
Theodore J. Minch is sanctioned $1,000. Within fourteen days of the date of this
order, the Mr. Minch must tender a check payable to the clerk of this court for the full
amount of the sanction. In addition, Mr. Minch is suspended from the bar of this court
for one year. Upon conclusion of that suspension and upon payment of the
aforementioned sanction, Mr. Minch may seek readmission. It is also ordered that, should
Mr. Minch be readmitted to practice before us, he shall not be appointed pursuant to the
Criminal Justice Act unless and until he has demonstrated a willingness and ability to
comply with the orders of this court.
The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Indiana
Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.
SO ORDERED

-- 3 of 3 --