Reid v. United States of America et al
Filing
64
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's 59 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/20/17. Referred to Judge O'Neill. 14-Day Objection Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
GORDON C. REID,
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 1: 14-cv-01163-LJO-MJS (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
15
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
16
17
Defendants.
(ECF No. 59)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended
complaint against Defendant Ontiveroz for retaliation against Plaintiff for exercising First
Amendment rights. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants United States of
America, Company X, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Copenhaver, Parent, Garcia,
Fenton, Cisneros, Oliverez, John Does 1-2, and Jane Doe, as well as additional claims
against Ontiveroz, were dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id.)
1
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for entry of a final judgment as to the
2
dismissed claims and defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
3
(ECF No. 59.)
4
I.
5
Plaintiff has engaged in prolonged efforts to challenge the Court’s screening
6
Procedural History
orders.
7
Plaintiff’s original complaint was screened and dismissed with leave to amend for
8
failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 13.) After requesting extensions of time, Plaintiff
9
eventually filed objections to the screening order (ECF No. 16) which were construed as
10
a motion for reconsideration and denied by the District Judge. (ECF No. 25.) He also
11
filed an interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 20) which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
12
(ECF No. 23.)
13
Plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint (ECF No. 28) which was screened
14
and found to state a cognizable First Amendment claim against Defendant Ontiveroz in
15
his individual capacity, but no other claims. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff was given the option
16
to either file an amended complaint or to proceed only on the claim found to be
17
cognizable. (Id.)
18
After two extensions of time(ECF Nos. 33, 36) Plaintiff filed another motion for
19
reconsideration and requested that the matter be certified for interlocutory appeal. (ECF
20
No. 38.) This motion for reconsideration and request for certification were denied. (ECF
21
No. 42.) Plaintiff again was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the
22
Court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claim. (Id.)
23
Plaintiff did not respond and on September 26, 2017 this Court ordered to Plaintiff
24
to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order
25
and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 44.) The District
26
Judge construed Plaintiff’s response as an election to stand on his complaint, and he
27
dismissed the claims found non-cognizable. (ECF No. 45.) The matter then proceeded
28
with service upon Defendant Ontiveroz. (ECF No. 47.)
2
1
II.
2
Plaintiff seeks a final judgment as to the dismissed defendants in order to
3
immediately appeal the screening order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4
54(b). (ECF No. 59.)
Motion for Entry of Final Judgment
5
Generally, an appellate court will not review a district court’s ruling until after entry
6
of a final judgment. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 478 (1978).
7
Where, as here, a decision or order “adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights
8
and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, [it] does not end the action as to any of the
9
claims or parties” and does not constitute a final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
10
However, Rule 54(b) allows a court to “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more,
11
but fewer than all, claims or parties . . . if the court expressly determines that there is no
12
just reason for delay.” Thus, a Rule 54(b) judgment may be immediately appealed.
13
James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1068 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002).
14
“It is left to the sound judicial discretion of the district court to determine the
15
‘appropriate time’ when each final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for
16
appeal.” Curtis-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). Partial judgment
17
under Rule 54(b) “must be reserved for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of
18
multiplying the number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are
19
outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to
20
some claims or parties.” Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th
21
Cir. 1981). “A similarity of legal or factual issues [still pending before the trial court] will
22
weigh heavily against entry of judgment under the rule, and in such cases a Rule 54(b)
23
order will be proper only where necessary to avoid a harsh and unjust result,
24
documented by further and specific findings.” Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Morrison–
25
Knudsen Co., Inc., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir.1985).
26
Here, final judgment as to the dismissed defendants is not appropriate. This is not
27
an “unusual case.” Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 655 F.2d at 965. Indeed, the Court is
28
faced with similar claims almost daily. Moreover, the Court does not find that there are
3
1
any pressing needs that require an early and separate judgment as to the dismissed
2
defendants. Finally, multiplying the number of proceedings in this case will not ensure
3
efficient use of court resources. To the contrary, Plaintiff has already filed two motions
4
for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 16, 38) and an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s
5
screening orders, (ECF Nos. 25, 42.) This has resulted in a delay in serving Defendant
6
Ontiveroz. Entry of a Rule 54(b) judgment would frustrate the prompt and efficient
7
resolution of this case. The Court does not find that there is “no just reason for delay.”
8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for entry of final judgment should be denied.
9
10
11
12
V.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for
entry of final judgement (ECF No. 59) be DENIED.
13
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District
14
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
15
fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any
16
party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a
17
document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
18
Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen
19
(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
20
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
21
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
22
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
23
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 20, 2017
/s/
26
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
4
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?