Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coley v. Indiana Department of Child Services

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

December 4, 2014

BRITTANY COLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, KATHLEEN LANDRUM Family Case Manager, MIKE ABELL Supervisor, HIWOT SEIFU DCS Worker, Defendants.

Order on Pending Motions

JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.

In her motion to move for final order plaintiff Brittany Coley requests that this Court issue a final appealable judgment on the following issues: (1) the denial of her motions to add DCS and Mary Beth Bonaventura as defendants; (2) the denial of permission to file documents electronically; and (3) the denial of her motion to strike.[1]

Because the plaintiff is requesting an issuance of a final judgment, her motion is construed as one brought under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That Rule provides that in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties, after the district court resolves at least one but fewer than all of the pending claims, it may, in its discretion, direct the entry of a final, appealable judgment if there is no just reason for delay. Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc., 891 F.Supp. 1289, 1303-04 (E.D. Wis. 1995). In support of her motion for a final order, the plaintiff has identified no good reason to issue a partial final judgment with regard to the dismissal of the claims against DCS and Mary Beth Bonaventura and the Court discerns none.

Further, "Rule 54(b) permits entry of a partial final judgment only when all of one party's claims or rights have been fully adjudicated, or when a distinct claim has been fully resolved with respect to all parties." Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bobst Group USA, Inc., 392 F.3d 922, 924 (7th Cir. 2004). The denial of permission to file documents electronically and the denial of the plaintiff's motion to strike did not fully adjudicate any party's claims or rights. These rulings therefore do not qualify for the issuance of a partial final judgment. These rulings also cannot be certified for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1292, which requires that "there must be a question of law, it must be controlling, it must be contestable, and its resolution must promise to speed up the litigation... and the petition must be filed in the district court within a reasonable time after the order sought to be appealed." Ahrenholz v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Illinois, 219 F.3d 674, 675 (7th Cir. 2000). Because the plaintiff has not shown that the entry of partial final judgment is appropriate or that any of the Court's orders should be certified for interlocutory review, her motion to move for final order [dkt 34] is denied. The plaintiff's motion for extension of time [dkt 33] and motion for permission to electronically file [dkt 37] are captioned for this Court and the Court of Appeals. Those motions [dkt 33 and dkt 37] are denied to the extent they are filed in this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.