Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03009/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03009-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

ROSE L. FREEMAN AND JOHN SCOTT PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 06-3009

RON KINCADE, In his Official Capacity

as Boone County, Arkansas, Prosecutor

and in his Personal Capacity;

WES BRADFORD, In his Official Capacity

as Boone County, Arkansas, Deputy

Prosecutor and in his Personal Capacity;

DANNY HICKMAN, In his Official Capacity

as Boone County, Arkansas, Sheriff and

in his Personal Capacity;

JAMES D. WESSELLS, In his Official Capacity

as Boone County, Arkansas, Deputy Sheriff/

Investigator and in his Personal Capacity;

JAMES L. WHITE, In his Professional Capacity

as Harrison Arkansas Daily Times Staff and

in his Personal Capacity;

D. JEFF CHRISTENSON, In his Professional

Capacity as Harrison Arkansas Daily Times

Publisher and in his Personal Capacity DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 17th day of July, 2006, comes on for consideration

Separate Defendants Ron Kincade And Wes Bradford’s Motion For Entry

Of Final Judgment (document #32), to which no response has been

filed, and the Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and

orders as follows:

1. On May 9, 2006, the Court entered an Order dismissing

separate defendants Ron Kincade (“Kincade”) and Wes Bradford

(“Bradford”) from this case. Kincade and Bradford now move for an

entry of final judgment as to them, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54(b).

They argue that there is no reason for delay in doing so, and that

entry of final judgment would “offer a more expeditious repose” to

Case 3:06-cv-03009-JLH Document 35 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

them.

2. F.R.C.P. 54(b) provides, in relevant part, that

[w]hen more than one claim for relief is presented in an

action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or

third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved,

the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to

one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties

only upon an express determination that there is no just

reason for delay and upon and express direction for the

entry of judgment.

In the case at bar, there is more than one claim for relief,

and there are also multiple parties. The case, therefore, falls

within the class of cases addressed by Rule 54. The Court is not,

however, persuaded that the order sought by Kincade and Bradford

should be entered. The factual allegations regarding Kincade and

Bradford are heavily intertwined with those against other

defendants, and there is a possibility that if the Court were to

enter such an order, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals might be

called upon to address the same issues in various appeals. It is

axiomatic that piecemeal appeals are not favored, and proper

application of Rule 54(b) is important in preventing such appeals.

Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development, 738 F.2d 310 (8th Cir. 1984). The motion

is, therefore, denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03009-JLH Document 35 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>