Appellate Law

CA1: A FRCP 54(b) question

By S. COTUS

Niemic v. Galas, No. 07-1763 (7/28/08) (unpublished).  In this prisoner-health-care litigation, the District Court directed the entry of judgment under R. 54(b).  The problem is that the District Court didn't explain why there was no ?just? reason for the delay.  The First says that it ?requested? an explanation from the District Court.  (How? By an order? By a phone call.  It doesn't say.)

Despite somehow being able to supplement the record (I guess as a means to knock out some prisoner litigation), the First still isn't impressed with the District Court's explanation, and says that the District Court didn't explain the interrelationship (or lack, therefore) of the defendants.  But, the First says that all in all the claims between the different classes of defendants are not that intertwined, and then blabbers on a bit about how this will reduce judicial expense.

The merits seem simple, and the First says that the defendant-prison-health-care providers gave him enough care. 

The First doesn't seem too impressed with the fact that a 56(f) motion was denied.  The plaintiff argued that his legal papers were ?strewn? ransacked by jail guards and ?strewn? eveywhere.  But the first figures out why it doesn't matter.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on July 30, 2008 (boomark / email).