NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__ _________ No. 18

- 1899

__________ SHARON CHAVIS; MYA CH AVIS , Appellant s

v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY; CHRIS CHRISTIE; JERSEY CITY MEDICAL CENT ER; MEADOWVIEW PSYCHIATRIC HOS PTIAL

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States Distr ict Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Act ion No. 2

- 17

- cv
- 02855 ) District Judge: Honorable Kevin McNulty

____________________________________ Submitted Pursua nt to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) F e b r u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 1 9
Before: K R A U S E , S C I R I C A , a n d N Y G A A R D , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : February 3, 2021 )

___________

OPINION *

___________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C o urt and pursuant t o I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute b indi ng precedent.2 Pro se appella nts Sharon and Mya Chavis appeal from an or der of the District
Court di sm issing their complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The complaint raise d various claims s temming from the care that Sharon Chav is received at Jersey City Medical Center ( JCMC) and Meadowview Psychia tr ic Hospital (Meadowview). Chavis was initially admitted to JCMC for physical and mental trauma she suffered after a family dis pute , and she was later transferred to Meadowview. At

s ome point, a transfer was requested to King s Adult Care Center in Brook ly n, but it was denied. Sharon and Mya Chavis , her daughter, have allege d that the defendants ’ conduct violated their rights und er the Fair Housin g Act, the Ameri cans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act , the He alth Ins ur ance Portability and Accountability Act, and various New Jersey state laws. The defendants filed answers to the complaint and brought cross
- clai ms for
indemnification and contributio n, as well as motions to dismiss for failur e to state a
claim. On Marc h 12, 2018, t he District Court granted the motions to dismiss, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and granted 30 days’ le ave to file an ame nded complaint. The District Court di d not address the defendants’ cross

- claims. The plaintiffs did not fil e an amended complaint, and instead appealed to this Court. This Court’s appellate jurisdiction is typically over “final decisio ns” by district

co urts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. An orde r that decides fewer than all claims, or de termines the rights and liabi l ities of fewer than all parties, is not immediately appealable unless the3 District Court certifies its order pursuant to Federa l Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 54(b)

. See Hill v. City of Sc ranton , 411 F.3d 118, 124 (3d Cir. 2005)

. 1 “This is equally tr ue whethe r the unresolved claim was asserted in the plaintiff’s complaint, or was pleaded as a counterclaim, or a cross

- claim.” Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Bea zer E., Inc. , 124 F.3d 551, 557 (3d Ci r. 1997) (internal citations omitted).
Her e, the District Cour t’s March 12, 2018 , order did not expressly dispose of the
defendants’ cross
- claim s. Nor did the District Court’s order give any indicat ion that it

was en tering a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b). See Berckeley Inv. Grp., Ltd. v. Colkitt , 455 F.3 d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 2006) . Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal. The Appellees argue that, from a practical stan dpoint, the remain ing cross

- claims
are moot. The cross

- claims consist entirely of claims for indem nity and contributio n , and
all of the Appellants’ claim s have been dismissed. “However, to read [such] ‘practicalities’ into the already plain language of R ule 54(b) would on ly foster uncertainty in an area of th e law that must remain clear.” Owens v. Ae tna Life & Cas.
Co. , 654 F.2d 218, 220 n.2 (3d Cir. 19 81).

1 In addition, “ [g] enerally, an order which dism isses a complaint without prejudice is neither final nor appealable because the deficiency may be corrected by the plaintiff withou t affec ting the cause of action.” Borelli v. City of Readi ng , 532 F.2d 950, 951 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam). The order will be final and appealable, however, if the plaintiff

“ declares his in tention to stand on his complaint .” Id. at 951

- 52 . Here, Sharon and Mya Chavis have no t filed an amended complaint withi n th e time provided by the District Court, and have indicated thei r intention to stand on their complaint. See Batoff v. State Farm I ns. Co. , 977 F.2d 848, 851 n.5 (3d Cir. 1992).4 In some circumstances, “a n otherwise nonappealable order may become final for the purposes of app eal where a [party ] voluntarily and finally abandons the other claims in the litigation.” Bethel v . McAllister Bros., Inc. , 81 F .3d 376, 382 (3d Cir. 1996)

. But
here , after the Clerk ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefing on the outstanding cross
- claims in t his case, at least one of the Appellee s indicated that it “ does
not waive or aban don its cross claims .” Supp l

. Br. of Appellees Jersey City Med. Ctr., et al., at 2. Given this statement, we cannot say that the Appellees have abandoned t he outstanding cla ims in this case. Accordingly, we wil l dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdict ion. 2 I n l i g h t o f o u r d i s p o s i t i o n , t he motion to stay this appeal a n d t h e m o t i o n t o r e s u m e t h i s a p p e a l a r e d e n i e d

.

2 We note that the part ies may ask the Di strict Court to rule on the outsta ndin g cross
claims. A new notice of appeal will be necessary from any final order issued by the District Court.