CHRISTMAS v. HARRIS COUNTY GEORGIA et al

Filing 61

ORDER vacating 44 Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D. LAND on 3/31/2021 (tlf).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
LYNETTE CHRISTMAS,

*
*

Plaintiff,
vs.

*

THOMAS CARL PIERSON,

*

Defendant.

*

CASE NO. 4:19-CV-53 (CDL)

O R D E R
The
claim

Court

against

previously
Harris

granted

County,

all

the

motion

official

to

dismiss

capacity

all

claims

against Sheriff Robert Michael Jolley and Defendant Thomas Carl
Pierson, and all state law claims against Sheriff Jolley in his
individual capacity.

Order on Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15.

Based on that ruling, the Court terminated Harris County as a
party

in

this

action.

The

Court

later

granted

the

summary

judgment motion of Sheriff Jolley based on qualified immunity
and terminated the Sheriff as a party.
Summ.

J.,

ECF

No.

38.

The

only

Order Granting Mot. for

remaining

claims

are

the

individual capacity claims against Defendant Pierson.
The parties filed a consent motion for entry of judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which the Court
denied in a text order.

Text Order (Jan. 21, 2021), ECF No. 44.

Upon further reflection, the Court reconsiders its decision to

deny

entry

of

judgment

under

Rule

54(b).

The

Court

hereby

vacates its text order denying the consent motion for entry of
judgment under Rule 54(b) and issues this order certifying its
judgment for immediate appeal.
Rule 54(b) permits the Court to direct entry of a final
judgment

“as

to

one

or

more,

but

fewer

than

all

claims

or

parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no
just reason for delay.”

The Court recognizes that the Eleventh

Circuit has cautioned that

Rule 54(b)

certifications must be

reserved for “unusual” cases where the litigants’ pressing need
for an early and separate judgment outbalances the costs and
risks of overcrowding the appellate docket.

Ebrahimi v. City of

Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 166 (11th Cir. 1997).
The Court finds that this is such a case.
motion

to

dismiss

Harris

County,

all

completely
claims

County Sheriff, and all
against

Sheriff

completely
Jolley.

of

against

individual

Jolley.

disposed

disposed

Then,
all

the

of

The order on the
all

office

capacity

the

remaining

of

against

the

Harris

state law claims

summary
claims

claims

judgment
against

order

Sheriff

Based on those two orders, all parties except Defendant

Pierson in his individual capacity have been terminated from the
case.

Thus, the order on the motion to dismiss and the summary

judgment order together constitute a final judgment eligible for
certification under Rule 54(b).

2

The remaining question is whether there is any just reason
for

delay.1

Taking

into

account

judicial

administrative

interests and the equities involved, there is not.

The claims

for which final judgment is sought are completely separable from
the

claims

remaining

to

be

adjudicated.

The

nature

of

the

claims already determined is such that no appellate court will
have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were
a subsequent appeal after the individual capacity claims against
Defendant

Pierson

are

finally

adjudicated.

Accordingly,

the

Court concludes that there is no just reason for delaying the
certification of its dismissal order (ECF No. 15) together with
its summary judgment order (ECF No. 38) as final pursuant to
Rule 54(b).
Because there is no just reason for delay, the Clerk is
hereby ORDERED to enter final judgment as to Harris County and
Sheriff Robert Michael Jolley based on the Court’s orders on the
motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 31st day of March, 2021.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
The Court previously concluded that it could not find “no just reason
for delay” because the remaining claims against Defendant Pierson were
scheduled to be tried during an upcoming trial term, so the Court did
not anticipate a lengthy delay in the trial and thus the entry of
final judgment.
That trial term has been delayed due to COVID-19
concerns, and the Court finds that judicial economy favors Rule 54(b)
certification.

1

3