Stevens-Rucker v. Columbus, City of et al

Filing 107

ORDER granting 103 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 5/9/2017. (agm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
PATTI STEVENS-RUCKER, Administrator
of the Estate of Jason White, Deceased
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 2:14–CV–2319
JUDGE SMITH
Magistrate Judge Deavers

v.

CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment under
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 103). Defendant responded in support
of Plaintiff’s Motion while also asking the Court to enter final judgment on Plaintiff’s municipal
liability claims dismissed by the Court (Doc. 105). The Motion is now ripe for review. For the
following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND

On March 16, 2017, this Court entered an Opinion and Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. As a reminder, the Court granted
summary judgment on the following claims:


Plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force claim against Defendant Frenz because Frenz was
entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 100, Op. and Order at 24);



Plaintiff’s Ohio law assault, battery and wrongful death claims against Defendant Frenz
arising out of his use of force because Frenz was immune under state law. (Id. at 39);



Plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force claim against Defendant McKee for McKee’s first and
second shootings because McKee was entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 27, 29);



Plaintiff’s Ohio law assault and battery claims against Defendant McKee arising from his
first and second shootings because McKee was immune under state law. (Id. at 39);



Plaintiff’s § 1983 municipal liability claims against Columbus for the alleged
constitutional violations arising out of Frenz’s shooting and McKee’s first and second
shootings. (Id.);



Plaintiff’s § 1983 municipal liability claims against Columbus for the alleged
constitutional violations arising out of Frenz and McKee’s alleged deliberate indifference
to White’s medical needs. (Id. at 38);



Plaintiff’s state law claims against Columbus because Columbus is immune. (Id. at 40).

The Court denied summary judgment on the following claims:


Plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force claim against Defendant McKee for McKee’s third
shooting. (Id. at 31);



Plaintiff’s § 1983 deliberate indifference claims against Defendants McKee and Frenz.
(Id. at 36);



Plaintiff’s Ohio law assault, battery, and wrongful death claims against Defendant
McKee arising from McKee’s third shooting and McKee’s alleged deliberate
indifference. (Id. at 39);



Plaintiff’s Ohio law assault, battery, and wrongful death claims against Defendant Frenz
arising from Frenz’s alleged deliberate indifference. (Id.);



Plaintiff’s § 1983 municipal liability claim against Columbus arising out of McKee’s
third shooting. (Id. at 38)
II.

ANALYSIS

Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “allows a district court to enter a final
judgment ‘on one or more claims, or as to one or more parties, in a multi-claim/multi-party
action.’” Pittman ex rel. Sykes v. Franklin, 282 F. App’x 418, 429–30 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). “The rule attempts to strike a balance between the undesirability of
piecemeal appeals and the need for making review available at a time that best serves the needs
of the parties.” Solomon v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 782 F.2d 58, 60 (6th Cir. 1986). In determining
whether a 54(b) ruling is justified, the Court must consider five factors:

2

(1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) the
possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future
developments in the district court; (3) the possibility that the reviewing court
might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time; (4) the presence or
absence of a claim or counterclaim which could result in set-off against the
judgment sought to be made final; (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay,
economic and solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial, frivolity of
competing claims, expense, and the like.”
Pittman, 282 F. App’x at 430 (quoting Corrosioneering, Inc. v. Thyssen Envtl. Sys., Inc., 807
F.2d 1279, 1283 (6th Cir. 1986)).
In this case, the fourth factor is not relevant but the others all weigh in favor of
designating some of the Court’s findings as final judgments in this case. In the Opinion and
Order, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all of the claims which
arose from Frenz’s shooting and from Officer McKee’s first and second shootings. The Court
granted summary judgment on the federal claims and state law claims against both officers and
the city for the operative facts for those shootings. All of the claims in this case depend on the
same set of operative facts, qualified immunity analyses, and the constitutional rights of a fleeing
and later subdued suspect.
As to the second factor, while the parties are litigating the appeal of the Court’s denials of
qualified immunity, the Court is unlikely to make any ruling which would moot the need for
review of the Opinion and Order as the triable issues left in this case are already subject to the
interlocutory appeal. For the third factor, there is little doubt that Plaintiff would appeal this
Court’s rulings at the close of this case and the Court of Appeals would again consider whether
this Court made proper rulings regarding the application of qualified immunity and whether the
officers violated Jason White’s constitutional rights. For the miscellaneous factors, finalizing the
issues on which the Court granted summary judgment would allow the parties to consolidate the

3

appeal to consider each of the uses of force, thereby reducing the time this case will spend on
appeal and reducing the costs to both parties.
This case shares numerous similarities with Mott v. Lucas, in which the District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio granted 54(b) judgment where some claims and parties were denied
qualified immunity but others were granted immunity. No. 1:10-cv-0164, 2011 WL 3705131, at
*3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 23, 2011). The court reasoned that since the denials of qualified immunity
were already subject to an interlocutory appeal, waiting to appeal grants of immunity would
cause needless delay and a duplication of effort for the Court of Appeals. Id. Similarly, all of
the issues in this case that could be tried are currently before the Court of Appeals and the
remaining claims have been adjudicated via dismissal upon summary judgment. For all of the
above reasons, the Court finds that each grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants
should be considered a final ruling under 54(b) and there is no just reason for delay in Plaintiff’s
pursuit of appeal on those issues.
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above discussion, the Clerk shall enter final judgment in favor of
Defendants on the following claims:


Plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force claim against Defendant Frenz. (Doc. 100, Op. and
Order at 24);



Plaintiff’s Ohio law assault, battery and wrongful death claims against Defendant Frenz
arising out of his use of force. (Id. at 39);



Plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force claim against Defendant McKee for McKee’s first and
second shootings. (Id. at 27, 29);



Plaintiff’s Ohio law assault and battery claims against Defendant McKee arising from his
first and second shootings because McKee was immune under state law. (Id. at 39);



Plaintiff’s § 1983 municipal liability claims against Columbus for the alleged
constitutional violations arising out of Frenz’s shooting and McKee’s first and second
shootings. (Id.);
4



Plaintiff’s § 1983 municipal liability claims against Columbus for the alleged
constitutional violations arising out of Frenz and McKee’s alleged deliberate indifference
to White’s medical needs. (Id. at 38);



Plaintiff’s state law claims against Columbus. (Id. at 40).
The Clerk shall REMOVE Document 103 from the Court’s pending motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__/s/ George C. Smith
___
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5