IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30209

Summary Calendar

SEAN C. WALKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JEFFREY TRAVIS, Warden, Rayburn Correctional Center; BESSIE CARTER,

Director of Nursing at B.B. Sixty Rayburn Correctional Center; LOUISIANA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, Secretary,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:09-CV-4361

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sean C. Walker, Louisiana prisoner # 126912, appeals the dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against numerous defendants, including the head of

administration of B.B. Sixty Rayburn Correctional Center (the head of

administration). Walker asserted that the defendants were deliberately

indifferent to his safety and to his medical needs after he was attacked and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 18, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-30209 Document: 00511890671 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2012
No. 11-30209

injured by his cellmate. The district court dismissed Walker’s complaint as

frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted;

however, the judgment failed to mention Walker’s claims against the head of

administration, although it specifically dismissed Walker’s claims against the

other defendants. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear

appeals from “‘final decisions’” of district courts. Witherspoon v. White, 111 F.3d

399, 401 (5th Cir. 1997). Generally, a judgment adjudicating the rights of fewer

than all of the parties is not a final decision in the absence of a Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 54(b) certification directing entry of final judgment as to those

parties. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Tullos-Pierremont, 894 F.2d 1469,

1471 (5th Cir. 1990). In circumstances in which a court order is ambiguous as

to what parties and claims are being disposed of and “the district court clearly

intend[ed] to effect a final dismissal of a claim, we will construe [the district

court’s] order accordingly, despite ambiguous language that might indicate

otherwise.” Picco v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 900 F.2d 846, 849 n. 4 (5th

Cir.1990). 

The head of administration was served with Walker’s complaint and

amended complaint; thus, he was a party to the suit. See Nagle v. Lee, 807 F.2d

435, 440 (5th Cir. 1987). Although the district court’s judgment was silent

regarding Walker’s claims against the head of administration, the court might

have intended that the judgment be final in light of the fact that the district

court also denied Walker’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to substitute

Robert C. Tanner as the head of administration because Walker had failed to

state a claim against Tanner. See Picco, 900 F.2d at 849 n. 4. We conclude that

we should order a limited remand to allow the district court to indicate whether

the judgment of February 2, 2011, was intended to be the final judgment in this

case, and if not, for the court to determine whether or not it now will enter a

final judgment.

2

Case: 11-30209 Document: 00511890671 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2012
No. 11-30209

IT IS ORDERED that a limited remand occur for the district court to enter

an order or judgment as indicated. Proceedings on this appeal are stayed

pending the receipt of the district court’s order or other response.

3

Case: 11-30209 Document: 00511890671 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/18/2012