Edwards v. Jones et al (INMATE2)
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)
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?