Mills v. Adams County Sheriff Dept. et al

Filing 122

ORDER denying 116 Motion for Certification of Final Judgment Signed by District Judge David C. Bramlette, III on 01/29/2020 (sl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY DUANE MILLS
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO.

5:17-CV-110-DCB-MTP

TRAVIS PATTEN, ANTHONY NETTLES,
MATTHEW HENDERSON, HENRY FRANK, JR.,
TONY NICHOLS, JERRY BROWN,
STANLEY SEARCY, JR., JACKIE DENNIS
and WALTER MACKEL

DEFENDANTS
Order

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Walter Mackel
(“Mackel”)’s Motion for Certification of Final Judgment [ECF No.
116]. Having read the Motion, memorandum, applicable statutory
and case law, and being otherwise fully informed in the
premises, the Court finds that the Defendant’s Motion should be
DENIED.
Background
On October 3, 2018, the Court dismissed the following
Defendants from this action: Mathew Henderson, Henry Frank, IV,
Jerry Brown, and Stanley Searcy, Jr. [ECF No. 74]. On September
4, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Travis Patten and Defendant
Walter Mackel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 79]. As of
the date of this Order, there are only claims against two
Defendants in the suit – Anthony Nettles and Tony Nichols. Both
1

Defendants have pending Motions for Summary Judgment. [ECF No.
119]. Defendant Mackel acknowledges that the Order granting his
summary judgment motion is not a final judgment and is not
appealable but argues that “the most efficient and effective
path to disposition… is entry of final judgment authorizing
immediate appeal.” [ECF No. 116] at p. 1. The Defendant argues
that it would allow the Plaintiff to proceed with an appeal as
to the Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Mackel.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) states that “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.” As a threshold matter, the Court
exercises its sound discretion in determining whether “there is
no just reason for delay.” Ackerman v. FDIC, 973 F.2d 1221, 1224
(5th Cir. 1992). To do so, the Court balances the “cost and
inconvenience of piecemeal review and the danger of injustice
from delay.” Vaughan v. Carlock Nissan of Tupelo, Inc., Civ. No.
1:09-cv-293, 2011 WL 4433597, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 21, 2011).
Rule 54(b) motions are “disfavored and should be granted only
when necessary to avoid injustice.” PYCA Indus., Inc. v.
Harrison County Waste Mgmt., 81 F.3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996).

2

The Fifth Circuit has made clear that avoiding piecemeal appeals
is “[o]ne of the primary policies behind requiring a
justification for Rule 54(b) certification.” Id. The Fifth
Circuit has found that piecemeal appeals or litigation would
result if certification is allowed when the claims all stem from
the same essential facts. See Saucier v. Coldwell Banker JME
Realty, Civ. No. 1:04-cv-686-HSO-RHW, 2007 WL 2746785, at *2
(S.D. Miss. Sept. 19, 2007)(citing to Eldredge v. Martin
Marietta Corp., 207 F.3d 737, 741–42 (5th Cir. 2000)).
Here, the Defendant has presented no evidence or
justification warranting the application of Rule 54(b). The
Defendant’s rational as to why the Court should enter a Rule
54(b) judgment is that: (1) the Plaintiff is a prolific filer,
(2) if the Plaintiff properly appeals the Court’s grant of
summary judgment as to Defendant Mackel, and the appeal fails to
result in a reversal, then the Defendant will save substantial
cost, and (3) the remaining charges are immaterial to Defendant
Mackel and he will incur unnecessary cost and delay by waiting
on the disposition of the remaining charges.
In this case, each claim arises out of essentially the same
facts. Plaintiff filed suit, claiming that Walker Mackel
allegedly raped the Plaintiff. Plaintiff then sued the other
Defendants for their actions or inactions involving the alleged

3

rape. Should the Defendant’s Motion for Certification of Final
Judgment be granted, it is likely that the Court of Appeals will
have multiple appeals arising from the same set of facts.
Additionally, there is no hardship or injustice that would be
alleviated by immediate appeal, other than the typical costs
associated with litigation. Therefore, the Court’s grant of
summary judgment for Defendant Mackel shall not be certified as
a final judgment, and the Plaintiff, should he so choose, may
appeal when a final judgment is entered and all claims are
disposed of.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Mackel’s
Motion for Certification of Final Judgment [ECF No. 116] is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 29th day of January, 2020.

_/s/ David Bramlette________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4