Davis v. Town of Cary North Carolina et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying 64 Motion to Reassign Case ; denying 65 Motion Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 59(c) - New Evidence; denying 66 Motion Relief from Judgment ; denying 68 Motion for Additional Findings. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 6/30/2017. 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
5:08-CV-176-BO
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF CARY, NC, eta!.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on motions by William Scott Davis Jr., pro se, to reopen
this closed case and for various kinds of relief. This case, along with several other cases filed by
Mr. Davis in this Court, has been dismissed, judgment has been entered, and has been appealed
several times and mandates have 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 these motions to reassign, under Rule 59, for
relief from judgment, or for to enter additional filings, as a method by which to avoid the prefiling injunction. 1 The Court will not sanction such action.
Accordingly, the motion to reassign case, [DE 64], motion under Rule 59(c), [DE 65],
motion for relief from judgment, [DE 66], and motion for additional findings, [DE 68], are each

1

A pre-filing injunction has also been issued against Mr. Davis in the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals, Davis v. Town of Cary North Carolina, No. 16-1377, 2017 WL 1403166 (4th Cir. Apr.
19, 2017), and the Eastern District of Virginia, Davis v. Jawaorski, No. 4:13-CV-63 (E.D. Va.
Nov. 14, 2013).

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)!_ day

:r
tAAA/

of~ 2017.

TERRENCE W. BOY.LE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT

2