Alexander v. Hood et al
ORDER denying 36 Motion to Reconsider Prior Order 34 Denying Motion to Disqualify Lee Davis Thames as Defense Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 1/27/2017. (bbf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-202-MPM-JMV
JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI AND DESOTO COUNTY
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
This matter is before the court on the second motion  of the pro se Plaintiff, Effort
Alexander, to reconsider the court’s prior order denying his motion to disqualify Lee Davis
Thames as defense counsel in this case . Nothing asserted by Plaintiff in the instant motion –
either arguments he has made unsuccessfully, on repeated prior occasions, or ones so lacking in
any factual specificity as to be frivolous – warrants a different decision here.
In short, the Plaintiff argues that he was unsuccessful in two prior cases he filed in this
court (Alexander v. DeSoto County Soil and Water Conservation District, No. 3:14-cv- 147MPM-SAA, and Alexander v. DeSoto County Soil and Water Conservation District et al., No.
3:15-cv-179-DMB-JMV) because Mr. Thames served as defense counsel in those cases and
defrauded him and the court by misrepresenting the meaning or relevance, in some unspecified
manner, of a maintenance agreement from the 1950s. The Plaintiff apparently fails to recognize
that he was unsuccessful in his two prior lawsuits because, in the first case, the court ruled he had
waited too long to bring suit.1 Alexander v. DeSoto County Soil and Water Conservation District,
No. 3:14-cv-147-MPM-SAA, Order Granting Summary Judgment , affirmed . In the
The pro se Plaintff has actually filed a 3rd unsuccessful lawsuit concerning the same alleged
wrongdoing. Alexander v. DeSoto County, Mississippi et al., 3:14-cv-135-MPM-SAA. It too was dismissed based
upon the statute of limitations and affirmed on appeal. Mr. Thames was not defense counsel in that case.
second case, Alexander v. DeSoto County Soil and Water Conservation District et al., No. 3:15cv-00179-DMB-JMV, the court found the prior decision on the statute of limitations was res
judicata in the subsequent action. Order on Motion to Dismiss .
Further, as explained by separate order entered today, the court will not permit the
proposed amendment of the pleadings to assert either the alleged, but woefully vague, claims of
fraud against Mr. Thames or the more narrow allegations related to the aforementioned
maintenance agreement. This latter claim is not only vague but is one Plaintiff has made
unsuccessfully repeatedly on prior occasions.
In conclusion, there is no legitimate basis for disqualifying Mr. Thames. Accordingly, the
motion  is denied.
SO ORDERED this, the 27th day of January, 2017.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?