APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interlocutory Review; Rule 54(b) Certification; Finality of Judgment 
Posted: 1:00 am Mon, March 22, 2010
By admin
Tags: Appellate Practice
Where an inmate brought a civil rights action against various prison-official defendants and the parties sought interlocutory review, entering a stipulation in which the inmate agreed to dismiss his one remaining claim without prejudice and to reinstate it if he should prevail on appeal of any of the dismissed claims, the parties attempted to “manufacture” appellate jurisdiction and the District Court abused its discretion by certifying the case for appeal without an adequate explanation that there was “no just reason for delay” under Rule 54(b). Appeal is dismissed.
| Case Number | 09-1816 |
| Case Name | Clos v. Corrections Corporation of America |
| Court | 8th U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS |
| District | Appealed from the District of Minnesota |
| Category | APPELLATE PRACTICE |
| Type | CIVIL OPINIONS |
![[Print]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/email_2.png)
![[RSS Feed]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/rssfeed.png)
![[Facebook]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/twitter.png)


POST A COMMENT