Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01170/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01170-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Burton
Defendant
Russell Pearce
Defendant
Salvador Reza
Plaintiff
Jeff Trapp
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Salvador Reza, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Russell Pearce; Jeff Trapp; John Burton,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-01170-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant Trapp's motion for entry of judgment (doc. 26),

plaintiff's response (doc. 27), and defendant Burton's joinder to Trapp's motion and reply to

plaintiff's response (doc. 28). Trapp did not submit a reply in support of his motion, and the

time for replying has expired.

This case arises from plaintiff's visit to the Arizona State Senate Building on February

24, 2011, which ended in his arrest by officers Trapp and Burton. Plaintiff asserts various

constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 21, 2011, we granted

Trapp's and Burton's motions to dismiss, finding that both defendants were entitled to

qualified immunity on plaintiff's claims (doc. 25). Trapp and Burton now move for entry of

judgment in their favor. 

A court may direct entry of judgment as to specific parties in multi-party actions. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 54(b). We may only do so if we "expressly determine[] that there is no just reason

for delay." Id. Entering judgment under Rule 54(b) "must be reserved for the unusual case

Case 2:11-cv-01170-FJM Document 30 Filed 12/02/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of overcrowding

the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants" in obtaining an early

judgment for some parties. Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 776 F.2d

1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff opposes the motion, asserting that a forthcoming

motion to amend his complaint will cure the deficiencies that resulted in Trapp and Burton's

dismissal from this action. Given plaintiff's expressed intention and the early stage of this

litigation, entry of judgment under Rule 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. in favor of Trapp and Burton

is premature. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Trapp and Burton's motion for entry of judgment

without prejudice (doc. 26). 

DATED this 1st day of December, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01170-FJM Document 30 Filed 12/02/11 Page 2 of 2