Marc Norfleet v. Sherry Benton

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 21, 2014* Decided February 21, 2014

Before

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 13‐2342

MARC NORFLEET, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

v. No. 09‐cv‐347‐JPG

SHERRY BENTON, et al., J. Phil Gilbert, Defendants‐Appellees. Judge.

O R D E R

Marc Norfleet, an Illinois prisoner with a back impairment, sued a number of state employees for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, seeking injunctive relief and damages. The district judge granted Norfleet’s request to proceed in forma pauperis but later found that Norfleet failed to disclose a $26,000 settlement in

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

No. 13‐2342 Page 2

another case, and so the judge dismissed this suit with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). Norfleet filed a post‐judgment motion based on inmate trust account statements showing that the settlement money never went into his account. But the judge denied the motion on grounds that it merely advanced an argument he had considered and found unpersuasive. Norfleet challenged that denial in a second post‐ judgment motion, arguing that the judge failed to consider the account statements; the judge denied that motion, too, explaining that his dismissal order assumed that the money never went into Norfleet’s account.

Norfleet then appealed. More than 30 days had passed, however, since the judge denied the first post‐judgment motion, and a successive post‐judgment motion does not suspend the time for appealing the underlying judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a); York Group, Inc. v. Wuxi Taihu Tractor Co., Ltd., 632 F.3d 399, 401–02 (7th Cir. 2011). So in an earlier order we confined our review to the denial of Norfleet’s second motion.

Norfleet doesn’t tell us why he thinks the district judge was wrong to deny that motion, challenging instead the underlying dismissal of his case. His arguments, which should have been raised in a direct appeal, provide no basis for overturning the denial of his successive motion. West v. Schneiter, 485 F.3d 393, 395 (7th Cir. 2007); Bell v. Eastman Kodak Co., 214 F.3d 798, 801 (7th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.