Wiggins (ID 44076) v. Sisco et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 32 Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification Order. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 2/23/18. Mailed to pro se party Johnny Clint Wiggins by regular mail (msb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOHNNY CLINT WIGGINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 17-3080-SAC

D. SISCO, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification
Order. Plaintiff asks that the Court direct entry of a final judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim alleging
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Hutchinson Correctional Facility (Count IV of
Plaintiff’s complaint).
Rule 54(b) provides that “[w]hen more than one claim for relief is presented in an action .
. ., the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims
. . . only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express
direction for the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Thus, the Court must find both that the judgment as to which certification is sought is final
“in the sense that it is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a
multiple claims action” and further that there exists no just reason to delay entry of judgment.
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). The Court’s discretion to

1

grant or deny certification “is to be exercised ‘in the interest of sound judicial administration.’”
Id. at 8 (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 437 (1956).
In determining whether the judgment is final for purposes of Rule 54(b), “[f]actors the
district court should consider are ‘whether the claims under review [are] separable from the others
remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined [are] such
that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were
subsequent appeals.’” Stockman’s Water Co., LLC v. Vaca Partners, L.P., 425 F.3d 1263, 1265
(10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at 8). Because Plaintiff’s unadjudicated
claims involve allegations against staff at a different facility (Lansing Correctional Facility), as
well as a discrete claim of unconstitutional censorship at Hutchinson Correctional Facility, and
because these claims involve different issues, the Court finds its judgment dismissing Count IV of
Plaintiff’s complaint is final and there is no just reason to delay entry of judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification
Order is granted, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter final judgment dismissing Count IV of
Plaintiff’s complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: This 23rd day of February, 2018, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/_Sam A. Crow_____
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

2