Antonio Sustaita v. Ross Ford

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 4, 2024*
Decided April 5, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
Nos. 22-2384 & 23-1682
ANTONIO SUSTAITA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROSS FORD,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 19-cv-4150-MMM
Michael M. Mihm,
Judge.
O R D E R
Antonio Sustaita, an Illinois prisoner, challenges the denial of his motion to
reconsider the summary judgment entered against his claims that his constitutional
rights were violated during a prison transfer. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court determined
* We have agreed to decide the appeals 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 22-2384 & 23-1682 Page 2
that Sustaita alleged no exceptional circumstances to warrant post-judgment relief.
We affirm.
We describe the following events in the light most favorable to Sustaita, the
nonmoving party. See Lockett v. Bonson, 937 F.3d 1016, 1022 (7th Cir. 2019). On June 6,
2018, two correctional officers began transferring Sustaita from Hill Correctional Center
to a different prison. Hill was on a level I lockdown, under which prisoners had to be
handcuffed behind their backs unless a medical permit allowed otherwise. The officers
at first agreed to handcuff Sustaita in front of his body because he had prior shoulder
injuries. But they soon encountered corrections lieutenant Ross Ford, who—unaware of
Sustaita’s shoulder injuries—insisted that his handcuffs be refastened behind his back.
Ford tried re-cuffing Sustaita, but Sustaita experienced shoulder pain, so Ford linked
together two sets of handcuffs behind Sustaita’s back to ease the discomfort. Sustaita
requested to visit the healthcare unit for his pain, but Ford refused.
After the transfer, Sustaita was examined at his new prison’s healthcare unit,
where the staff did not note any injury. He visited the healthcare unit twice more over
the next week, and his medical records show that no injury was reported.
Sustaita brought this lawsuit in July 2019. The district court screened his
operative complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, allowing him to proceed on claims against
Ford for excessive force, deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and assault
and battery.
Ford moved for summary judgment on May 31, 2022. He argued that Sustaita
could not provide sufficient evidence to support his constitutional claims and that
Sustaita’s state claims were barred by sovereign immunity. That same day, the clerk
issued a “notice of summary judgment” to Sustaita and advised him that he had
21 days to respond to Ford’s motion.
Thirty-six days later, Sustaita had not responded to the motion or requested an
extension, and the court entered summary judgment for Ford. The court explained that
it had accepted Ford’s proposed statement of facts as undisputed because Sustaita failed
to respond to the motion in accordance with local rules. See C.D. Ill. R. 7.1(D). And the
court agreed with Ford that a reasonable jury could not find that he violated Sustaita’s
constitutional rights. The court explained that the excessive force claim failed because
Ford enforced the security procedures in good faith, and there was no evidence that
Ford knew about Sustaita’s shoulder injury or that Sustaita had a permit to allow
handcuffs in front of his body. As to the deliberate indifference claim, the court

-- 2 of 4 --

Nos. 22-2384 & 23-1682 Page 3
determined there was no evidence that Ford caused a new injury or exacerbated
Sustaita’s prior shoulder injury, and so Ford was not deliberately indifferent when he
refused to take Sustaita to the healthcare unit before his transfer. Because it was
dismissing the constitutional claims, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over
Sustaita’s state law claims. The court entered judgment the following day, on
July 7, 2022.
On July 8, Sustaita filed an untimely motion to extend the time to respond to
Ford’s summary judgment motion. Sustaita urged that Ford would not be prejudiced by
an extension, adding that he had been unable to access the law library or his case
materials because of a COVID-19 diagnosis and restrictions related to prison
lockdowns.
The court denied this motion. First, the court concluded that Sustaita failed to
demonstrate excusable neglect for the untimely motion. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 6(b)(1)(B).
Even if his movements or access to legal materials were restricted, the court stated,
Sustaita did not explain why he could not request an extension. Second, the court found
that the extraordinary remedy of relief under Rule 59(e) was not warranted because
Sustaita did not address the merits of the summary judgment order.
Sustaita filed a motion to reconsider, insisting that his motion for an extension
was timely. He stated that he did not receive the notice of summary judgment until
June 15 and promptly mailed his extension request on July 2—within the requisite
21 days—but the clerk did not docket his motion until after the July 5 deadline had
passed.
The court also denied this motion. Construing the motion under Rule 60(b), the
court determined that Sustaita failed to provide new evidence or demonstrate
exceptional circumstances to warrant relief from judgment.
On appeal, Sustaita challenges the court’s denial of his motion to reconsider,
reiterating that he timely filed his motion for an extension because he placed it in the
prison mail within 21 days of receiving the motion for summary judgment. But the
district court rightly determined that his motion was untimely because the local rules
required him to respond “[w]ithin 21 days after service of a motion for summary
judgment,” C.D. Ill. R. 7.1(D)(2), and service of the motion was complete upon Ford
mailing it on May 31, FED. R. C IV. P. 5(b)(2)(C), regardless of when Sustaita received it.

-- 3 of 4 --

Nos. 22-2384 & 23-1682 Page 4
Sustaita next argues that even if his motion were untimely, the district court
wrongly determined that he had not shown excusable neglect based on his COVID-19
illness, the prison lockdowns, and his lack of access to legal materials. But the court
appropriately denied the motion after considering the relevant circumstances
surrounding the neglect. See Bowman v. Korte, 962 F.3d 995, 998 (7th Cir. 2020). As the
court rightly noted, Sustaita filed his response late (18 days after the deadline), and he
did not allege any extraordinary circumstances to explain why his COVID-19 diagnosis
or restricted movements prevented him from timely requesting an extension.
Sustaita also argues that the district court was biased against him because the
court denied his extension request without regard for his COVID-19 illness and despite
having previously granted Ford’s extension requests. But the court’s adverse ruling
alone is insufficient to prove bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
We have considered Sustaita’s remaining arguments, and none has merit.
Finally, we note that the court, in its summary judgment order, relinquished
jurisdiction over Sustaita’s state law claims, but the judgment states that all claims
against Ford were dismissed with prejudice. We modify the judgment to reflect that,
with respect to any claims under state law, the dismissal is without prejudice.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

-- 4 of 4 --