Davis v. Town of Cary North Carolina et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 58 Motion Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P 60(b); denying 59 Motion Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 59(c); denying 60 Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 17(c)(2); denying 61 Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b); denying 62 Motion pursuant to Rules 17 and 60. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 4/9/2017. Certified copy sent via US Mail to William Scott Davis, Jr. at Butner - F.M.C., P.O. Box 1600, Butner, NC 27509. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
V.

)
)
)
)
)

5:08-CV-176-BO

)

TOWN OF CARY, NC, et al.,
Defendants.

)

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

)

V.

)

SCOTT L. WILKINSON,

5:11-CV-31-BO

)
)
)

Defendant.

WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES,
Plaintiff,
V.

WILLIAM SCOTT DA VIS, JR.,
Defendant.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR. and
(a minor) J.F.D., Suing by, her and next
friend,
Plaintiffs,
V.

JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

5:12-CV-413-BO

5:14-CV-6-BO

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)

v.

WILLIAM SCOTT DA VIS, JR.,

5: 14-CV -46-BO

)
)

Defendant.
WAKE COUNTY NC HUMAN
SERVICES,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant.

5:14-CV-47-BO

)
)
)
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on motions by William Scott Davis Jr., prose, to reopen
these closed cases and for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to
appoint counsel, for appointment of a guardian ad litem under Rule 17( c)(2 ), and for a new trial
or to alter judgment under Rule 59. Each of these cases has been dismissed, judgment has been
entered, and in some cases appeals have been taken and mandate has issued. Mr. Davis' current
filings, which are at best difficult to decipher, do not appear to provide the Court with any basis
upon which to reopen these matters or provide Mr. Davis with relief from judgment. Moreover, a
pre-filing injunction has been entered against Mr. Davis, see Davis v. Mitchell, 5:12-CV-493-F
(E.D.N.C. March 3, 2014), and it would appear that Mr. Davis is attempting to use motion to

2

reopen of these cases, have counsel or a guardian appointed, or for a new trial or alter judgment
as a method by which to avoid the pre-filing injunction. 1 The Court will not sanction such action.
Accordingly, the motions to reopen these closed cases and for relief under Rule 60(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to appoint counsel, for appointment of a guardian ad litem
under Rule 17(c)(2), and for a new trial or to alter judgment under Rule 59 in each of the abovecaptioned cases are DENIED. The Court will consider critically any future filings by Mr. Davis
in which it is apparent that he is merely seeking to avoid the pre-filing injunction.

SO ORDERED, this

_!f.__ day of April, 2016.

TERRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRI

1

JUDGE

A pre-filing injunction has also been issued against Mr. Davis in the Eastern District of
Virginia. Davis v. Jawaorski, No. 4:13-CV-63 (E.D.Va. November 14, 2013).
3