Edwards v. Jones et al (INMATE2)

Filing 30

ORDERED that the 22 MOTION for Extension of Time to Appeal is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Ira De Ment on 11/18/09. (sl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA OF E A S T E R N DIVISION D E M E T R IU S M. EDWARDS, P la in tiff, v. S H E R IF F JAY JONES, et al., D e fe n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 3:09-cv-660-ID (WO)

ORDER
T h is case is presently before the Court on a Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal (Doc. # 22), which Plaintiff filed on October 6, 2009. By the Motion, Plaintiff seeks sixty a d d itio n a l days to appeal this Court's Order of September 4, 2009, (Doc. # 17), which d is m is s e d several, but not all, defendants prior to service of process. A p p e a ls in civil cases in the federal courts lie only from final judgments. Fed. R. Civ. P . 54(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4; Lloyd Noland Foundation, Inc. v. Tenet Health Care Corp., 483 F .3 d 773, 778 (11th Cir. 2007). The Order Plaintiff seeks to appeal adjudicated the rights of o n ly some of the parties, and is therefore not an appealable final judgment. Id. ("Ordinarily . . . an order adjudicating fewer than all the claims in a suit, or adjudicating the rights and lia b ilitie s of fewer than all the parties, is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be ta k e n ." ). An exception to the general rule exists when the district court certifies a partial fin a l judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). No such certification was m a d e in this case, however. Therefore, the time for appeal of this Court's Order of

S e p te m b e r 4, 2009, has not yet arrived and the Motion for Extension of Time is not well

taken. Accordingly, it is hereby CONSIDERED and ORDERED that the Motion be and the s a m e is hereby DENIED. DONE this the 18th day of November, 2009. /s/ Ira DeMent SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE