In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases, No. 3:2022mc80066 - Document 145 (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge William H. Orrick granting 132 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF

In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases Doc. 145 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases, 8 ____________________________________ 9 Re Case Nos.: Cole v. Allison et al., 3:21-cv06503-WHO; Lee v. Allison et al., 4:21-cv01633-HSG; and Johnson v. Davis et al., 4:21-cv-01693-JSW 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 22-mc-80066-WHO ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 132 12 Defendant J. Clark Kelso1 moves under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13 14 for an order certifying as a final judgment this Court’s November 17, 2022 Second Order 15 Adopting July 15, 2022 and July 21, 2022 Orders For Pro Se Cases finding that “J. Clark Kelso is 16 immune from the claims in these cases and shall be DISMISSED from Case Nos. 21-cv-01633- 17 HSG Lee v. Allison et al.; 21-cv-01693-JSW, Johnson v. Davis, et al.; and 21-cv-06503-WHO 18 Cole v. Allison et al.” (the “Motion”). 19 As of the date of this Order, no defendant and only one plaintiff has objected to Kelso’s 20 motion. See Opposition by Paul David Johnson, Dkt. No. ECF 138. That opposition, however, 21 does not address the merits of whether judgment should be entered in favor of Kelso at this 22 juncture. Instead, Johnson appears to be requesting that the Court require the Receiver and other 23 defendants to respond to Johnson’s previously-filed pleadings, including his complaint and 24 motions for summary judgment. Id.; see also Dkt. No. ECF 144 (Rule 60(b) Motion filed on 25 3/6/23). 26 27 28 1 Kelso is the Receiver of the California prison medical healthcare system appointed by the Court in Plata v. Newsom, Case No. 4:01-cv-01351 JST (N.D. Cal.) (referred to hereafter as “Receiver” or “Kelso”). Dockets.Justia.com 1 Johnson’s arguments with respect to Kelso have been considered and denied. See Dkt. No. 2 ECF 114 at 2-3. Johnson’s motions seeking a response from other defendants are stayed while the 3 issues are on appeal at the Ninth Circuit. See Johnson v. Davis et al., 4:21-cv-01693-JSW at Dkt. 4 No. ECF 40, 42.2 Turning to the merits of Kelso’s motion, it is GRANTED in the interest of justice. All United States District Court Northern District of California 5 6 three requirements for the certification of a partial judgment under Rule 54(b) are satisfied: (1) the 7 case consists of multiple claims and parties; (2) the Court has rendered a final decision on at least 8 one of those claims – the defense of quasi-judicial immunity that is unique to the federal Receiver 9 and distinct from the immunity defenses asserted by the other defendants; and (3) there is no “just 10 reason” to delay the appeal of the claim(s) already decided as to Receiver, especially considering 11 the Receivership’s interest in resolving all outstanding claims against Receiver at the earliest 12 possible opportunity so that the prison medical system can be returned to the State as quickly as 13 feasible and without lingering claims and potential liabilities. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 14 351 U.S. 427, 434 (1956); Jordan v. Pugh, 425 F.3d 820, 826 (10th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the Court certifies as a final judgment as to Receiver its November 17, 2022 15 16 Second Order Adopting July 15, 2022 and July 21, 2022 Orders For Pro Se Cases covering the 17 case identified in the caption. Dkt. No. ECF 114. Entry of judgment shall be immediately entered as to Receiver J. Clark Kelso, individually 18 19 and/or in his official capacity (where appropriate) as Receiver for the California prison medical 20 health care system in Cole v. Allison et al., 3:21-cv-06503-WHO; Lee v. Allison et al., 4:21-cv- 21 01633-HSG; and Johnson v. Davis et al., 4:21-cv-01693-JSW. IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: March 10, 2023 24 ____________________________ William H. Orrick United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 Johnson’s most recent filing, a Rule 60(b) motion, is DENIED without prejudice, given the stay in his case. See 22-mc-80066 at Dkt. No. ECF 144; Case No. 21-cv-01693-JSW at Dkt. No. ECF 46. 2 2

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.