Clark v. Roy et al

Filing 103

MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Joint Motion of Dr. Steven Klapmeier, Dr. Lisa Staber and Dr. James Wichser for Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) 86 is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 6/24/15. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

COURTNEY BERNARD CLARK,
Plaintiff,

v.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
Civil File No. 13-2849 (MJD/HB)

COMMISSIONER TOM ROY, et al.,
Defendants.
Courtney Bernard Clark, pro se.
Andrea Pavelka Hoversten, Geraghty, O’Loughlin & Kenney, PA, Counsel for
Defendants Dr. Lisa Staber and Dr. Steven Klapmeier.
James S. McAlpine, John A. Sullivan, and Steven R. Schwegman, Quinlivan &
Hughes, PA, Counsel for Defendant Dr. James Wichser.
This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion of Dr. Steven
Klapmeier, Dr. Lisa Staber and Dr. James Wichser for Entry of Final Judgment
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). [Docket No. 86]
On March 13, 2015, this Court granted the motions to dismiss of Defendant
Doctors Steven Klapmeier, Lisa Staber, and James Wichser (the “Medical
Defendants”). [Docket No. 82] The Court also dismissed all claims against
1

Defendant Commissioner Tom Roy, but denied the motion to dismiss the § 1983
Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Officer Nate Drevlow in his
individual capacity based on the April 26, 2013 incident. Because one claim
remained, the Complaint was not entirely dismissed and no judgment was
entered.
The Medical Defendants now request that the Court enter final judgment
in their favor. They assert that there is no just reason for delay because the claim
remaining before the Court is separate and distinct from the claims asserted
against the Medical Defendants and future proceedings in this case will not affect
the claims against the Medical Defendants. Plaintiff Courtney Bernard Clark
opposes the Medical Defendants’ motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief – whether as
a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim – or when
multiple parties are involved, the court may 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. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated,
that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities
of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the
claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of
a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
liabilities.

2

“When deciding whether to certify a ruling as a final judgment under Rule
54(b), a district court must first determine that it is dealing with a ‘final
judgment.’ It must be a ‘judgment’ in the sense that it is a decision upon a
cognizable claim for relief, and it must be ‘final’ in the sense that it is an ultimate
disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims
action.” Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 566 F.3d 771, 774 (8th Cir.
2009) (citation omitted). Here, the Court has dismissed all claims against the
Medical Defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
and these claims are factually distinct from the single claim against the
remaining Defendant Drevlow. However, “[n]ot all final judgments on
individual claims should be immediately appealable, even if they are in some
sense separable from the remaining unresolved claims, and the district court
must determine that there is no just reason for delay.” Id. (citation omitted).
“Before certifying that ‘there is no just reason for delay’ under Rule 54(b), the
district court must consider both the equities of the situation and judicial
administrative interests, particularly the interest in preventing piecemeal
appeals.” Clos v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 597 F.3d 925, 928 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation
omitted).

3

Here, the Medical Defendants, not Plaintiff, seek judgment under Rule
54(b). There is no indication that the Medical Defendants desire immediate
appellate review. They point to no “danger of hardship or injustice through
delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal.” Huggins, 566 F.3d at
774 (citation omitted). The Eighth Circuit has “repeatedly stated that Rule 54(b)
certifications should neither be granted routinely nor as an accommodation to
counsel.” Id. (citation omitted). The Medical Defendants have provided no
explanation for why this case is different from the many other cases in which the
Court has dismissed all claims against some but not all defendants, such that
final judgment and potential appellate review cannot wait until this entire matter
is concluded. The parties have provided no equitable or administrative
justification for entering partial judgment. Based on a review of the record and
the parties’ briefs, the Court concludes that there is insufficient reason to enter
judgment under Rule 54(b).

Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:

4

The Joint Motion of Dr. Steven Klapmeier, Dr. Lisa Staber and Dr.
James Wichser for Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 54(b) [Docket No. 86] is DENIED.

Dated: June 24, 2015

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court

5