Johnson v. Lombardi, No. 15-3420 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, sentenced to death in Missouri, filed suit against defendants, alleging that the State's method of execution is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudiced and observed that the order was not a final order subject to appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently granted a stay of execution. The parties then filed briefs regarding whether plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the district court did not properly enter a final judgment, and the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Rule 54(b) does not apply to a single-claim action. Plaintiff's complaint brought only a single claim against state officials and the district court resolved that single claim by dismissing the complaint without prejudice. In this case, the district court could not invoke Rule 54(b) to enter a final judgment, or to “certify” its order for immediate appeal, because the district court’s order did not leave any claims, or the rights of any parties, unadjudicated in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Smith and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Civil Procedure. Where the district court dismissed Johnson's complaint challenging the State of Missouri's mode of execution as unconstitutional, but made clear that it would permit Johnson to amend the complaint to remedy the perceived deficiencies, there was no clear manifestation by the district court that its decision on the complaint was the end of the case, and the order dismissing the complaint was not final; since Rule 54(d) does not apply to single-claim actions, such as Johnson's, the district court could not invoke Rule 54(d) to enter a final judgment or to certify its order for immediate appeal; as a result, the court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, and it must be dismissed. [ March 18, 2016
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.