Webb v. Weber County Government et al
Filing
333
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 313 Motion for Rule 54(b) Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 7/11/16 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
DAVID WEBB,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY SCOTT, K. MURRAY, TERRY
THOMPSON, KEVIN McLEOD, KEVIN
BURTON, R. WEST, JOHNSON, R. GATES,
A. FLATT, JON GREINER, and THREE
JOHN DOES,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING PRO SE PLAINTIFF WEBB’S
MOTION FOR RULE 54(B)
CERTIFICATION AND MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT.
Case No. 1:11-cv-00128-DN-EJF
District Judge David Nuffer
Mr. Webb has moved for a Rule 54(b) final judgment certification as to his claims against
Weber County Defendants that were dismissed during summary judgment. 1
“The purpose of Rule 54(b) is to avoid the possible injustice of a delay in entering
judgment on a distinctly separate claim or as to fewer than all of the parties until the final
adjudication of the entire case by making an immediate appeal available.” 2 However, the
standard for certification under Rule 54(b) is not easily met.
[A] certification under Rule 54(b) is only appropriate when a district court
adheres strictly to the rule’s requirement that a court make two express
determinations. First, the district court must determine that the order it is
certifying is a final order. Second, the district court must determine that there is
no just reason to delay review of the final order until it has conclusively ruled on
all claims presented by the parties to the case. 3
1
Pro Se Plaintiff Webb’s Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification and Memorandum in Support (“Motion”), docket no.
313, filed May 17, 2016.
2
Oklahoma Turnpike Auth. v. Bruner, 259 F.3d 1236, 1241 (10th Cir.2001) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted).
3
Id. at 1242 (internal citations omitted).
“[A] judgment is not final for purpose of Rule 54(b) unless the claims resolved are
distinct and separable from the claims left unresolved.” 4 Courts focus on two factors in
determining separability: “(1) the factual overlap (or lack thereof) between the claims disposed
of and the remaining claims, and (2) whether the claims disposed of and the remaining claims
seek separate relief.” 5
Mr. Webb argues that the claims that were dismissed were separate from the ones
remaining, and therefore final judgment should be entered on the former. 6 The claims Mr. Webb
initiated against Weber County Defendants included:
(1) failure to report the Ogden City Defendants’ alleged excessive force; (2)
illegal search of Plaintiff’s property; (3) illegal strip search; (4) violation of
Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; (5) detention without
prompt judicial determination of probable cause; (6) civil rights conspiracy; (7)
supervisory liability; and (8) state law claims. (Doc. No. 181 at 24 and generally
Doc. No. 23). All of these claims were dismissed leaving only the illegal strip
search claim against Defendants West, Johnson, and Flatt, and the prolonged
detention claim against Defendants Thompson, West, Johnson, and Flatt. (Doc.
No. 228). 7
As Weber County Defendants correctly point out, “[t]he factual overlap between the
dismissed claims and the remaining claims against Weber County Defendants is almost
identical.” 8 And “[t]he dismissed claims against Weber County Defendants chronologically
overlap with the remaining claims against them, and so Rule 54(b) certification is not appropriate
since there are still pending claims involving several of the same facts against Weber County
Defendants.” 9
4
Id. at 1243.
5
Id. at 1242 (quoting Moore’s Federal Practice 3d § 202.06[2]).
6
Motion at 4.
7
County Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification at 4, docket no.
321, filed June 3, 2016.
8
Id. at 5.
9
Id.
2
Furthermore, there is just reason to delay review of Mr. Webb’s dismissed claims. The
current matter is ripe and ready for trial. An appeal would undermine judicial economy, delaying
considerably the disposition of this case, which is already five years old. Also, Mr. Webb will be
able to appeal these claims after there is final judgment after trial.
It is THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Webb’s Motion 10 is DENIED.
Dated July 11, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
10
Docket no. 313.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?