Raymond King v. Steven M. Newbold
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 609
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Raymond King, an Illinois prisoner, sued Wexford and medical personnel under the Eighth Amendment for alleged deliberate indifference to his severe TMJ condition.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; a magistrate granted partial summary judgment on December 16, 2013, narrowing the case.
- A separate defendant obtained judgment on the pleadings on December 5, 2014, further reducing claims to two remaining doctors.
- King orally requested a Rule 54(b) certification at a January 15, 2015 status conference—over 30 days after the December 5 order and 13 months after the partial summary judgment.
- The district court granted the Rule 54(b) certification; the defendants appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because King’s Rule 54(b) motion was untimely and he showed no extreme hardship to excuse the delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a Rule 54(b) judgment filed more than 30 days after the underlying orders | King sought certification despite the delay, implicitly arguing the court could still grant final judgment | Defendants argued the motion was untimely and thus improperly granted, depriving the court of appellate jurisdiction | Granting an untimely Rule 54(b) motion absent extreme hardship is an abuse of discretion; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether extreme hardship can excuse a tardy Rule 54(b) motion | King offered no showing of hardship or justification for the delay | Court required a showing of extreme hardship to excuse the Schaefer 30-day rule | No hardship shown; the exception did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (district court must determine finality and that there is no just reason for delay before entering Rule 54(b) judgment)
- Schaefer v. First Nat'l Bank of Lincolnwood, 465 F.2d 234 (7th Cir. 1972) (Rule 54(b) motions filed more than 30 days after the adjudication are generally untimely; only extreme hardship can excuse delay)
- Horn v. Transcon Lines, Inc., 898 F.2d 589 (7th Cir. 1990) (improper Rule 54(b) certification requires dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction)
- General Ins. Co. of Am. v. Clark Mall Corp., 644 F.3d 375 (7th Cir. 2011) (orders resolving fewer than all claims are not final for appeal absent proper Rule 54(b) certification)