Wake County Human Services v. Davis

Filing 44

ORDER - Mr. Davis's motions for leave (No. 5:12-CV-493-F [DE-55; DE-55-1]) are DENIED as moot. His other motions (No. 5:11-CT-3258-F [DE-20, DE-21; DE-22]; No. 5:12-CV-493-F [DE- 56; DE-57]; No. 5:14-CV-4-F [DE-43]) are DENIED. The Clerk of Cour t is DIRECTED to re-docket the filings in Docket Entry 55-2, pages 1-2 into Davis v. Perdue, No. 5:12-CV-593-FL, and pages 3-6 in Docket Entry 55-2, pages 3-6, into Davis v. Singer, No. 5:08-CV-186-FL. The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to docket a copy of No. 5:12-CV-493-F [DE-56; DE-57] and No. 5:14-CV-4-F [DE-43] in the criminal action United States v. Davis, 5:14-CR-240-F. Signed by Senior US District Judge James C. Fox on 7/13/2015. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (McDowell, G.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
~

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.,
Defendants.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, Jr.,
and (a minor) J.F.D., suing by her and
next friend,
Plaintiffs,

v.
CHARLOTTE MITCHEL, individually
and as Guardian Ad Litem of J.F.D.,
appointed by the Court; et al.,
Defendants.

WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES,
Plaintiff,
~

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant.

WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES,
Plaintiff,
~

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant.

)
)

)

No. 5: 11-CT-3258-F

)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)

)

No. 5:12-CV-493-F

)
)
)

)
)

)
)
)

)

No. 5:14-CV-3-F

)
)
)

)
)
)

)
)
)
)

No. 5:14-CV-4-F

WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES,
Plaintiff,
~

)
)
)

)

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant.

)
)

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Plaintiff,

· No. 5:14-CV-5-F

)
)
)

v.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant.

)

No. 5:14-CV-7-F

)
)
)

William Scott Davis, Jr., has filed a series of documents seeking (1) leave to file various
motions; (2) the recusal of the undersigned; and (3) the vacating of judgments issued in most, if not
all, the above-captioned cases. His request for leave is DENIED as moot, and the other motions are
DENIED.

Mr. Davis's motions for leave to file other motions are predicated on his belief that he must
seek leave pursuant to the pre-filing injunction issued by this court, which enjoins him filing any
actions in forma pauperis in this district without pre-authorization from a district court judge. See
Davis v. Mitchel, No. 5:12-CV-493-F, (E.D.N.C. March 3, 2014). The court does not discern from
any of Mr. Davis's filings that he seeks to initiate any new cases in forma pauperis; rather, he
appears to seek relief in actions that were once pending before the court. Accordingly, the court
finds that the pre-filing injunction is inapplicable, and Mr. Davis's motions (No. 5:12-CV-493-F
[DE-55; DE-55-1]) seeking leave to file his documents are DENIED as moot.
Turning to the merits of Mr. Davis's various motions, he asks that the undersigned recuse

2

himself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(l), which provide:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be. questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(i) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.

!d. Mr. Davis contends that the court's decisions "are biased" and that the undersigned has
demonstrated partiality. No. 5:11-CT-3258-F, [DE-22] at 5. He further contends that the pre-filing
injunction issued by the court has "poison[ed] the well" against him. I d.
In deciding whether a district judge should recuse under§ 455(a), the inquiry is whether "an
objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which
recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge's impartiality." United States

v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2003)(citation omitted), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1149 (2004).
The critical question presented by§ 455(a)" 'is not whether the judge is impartial in fact.' "Aiken

County v. BSP Division of Envirotech Corp., 866 F.2d 661, 679 (4th Cir. 1989)(quoting Rice v.
McKenzie, 581 F.2d 1114, 1116 (4th Cir. 1978)). Rather, it is whether another person, " 'not
knowing whether or not the judge is actually impartial, might reasonably question his impartiality
on the basis of all the circumstances.' " !d. The Fourth Circuit has explained:
This [objective] standard abolishes the rule that courts should resolve close
questions of disqualification in favor of a judge's so-called "duty to sit," see H.R.
Rep. 93-1453 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6351, 6355, but it does not
require a judge to recuse himself because of "unsupported, irrational, or highly
tenuous speculation," In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981). To
disqualify oneself in such circumstances would be to set "the price ofmaintaining the
purity of appearance" too high- it would allow litigants "to exercise a negative veto
over the assignment of judges." !d. Congress never intended the disqualification
statute to yield this result. See H.R. Rep. No. 93-1453 (1974), reprinted in 1974
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6351, 6355 ("Litigants ought not to have to face a judge where there
3

is a reasonable question of impartiality, but they are not entitled to judges of their
own choice.").
United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279,286-7 (4th Cir. 1988). Moreover,

"[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality
motion." LoCascio v. United States,_ 372 F. Supp. 2d 304, 315 (E.D.N.Y. 2005); see
also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Furthermore, "opinions
formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course
of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias
or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that
would make fair judgment impossible." Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
LoCascio v. United States, 473 F.3d 493, 496 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 554 (2007).

Mr. Davis's motion appears to suggest that the undersigned's previous orders suggest a
personal bias against him, or that the undersigned is part of a conspiracy to harm him. As the court
has observed, however, "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or
partiality motion," as such rulings "[a]lmost invariably ... are proper grounds for appeal, not for
recusal." Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. As to Mr. Davis's conspiracy allegations, they amount to
unsupported, irrational, or highly unsupported speculation which does not require the undersigned's
recusal. In sum, the court's consideration of Davis's motion and the law and policy applicable
thereto, compels the court to conclude that recusal is neither required nor suggested by any evidence
or argument presented by him. His motions requesting recusal (No. 5:11-CT-3258-F [DE-21; DE22]; No. 5:12-CV-493-F [DE-56; DE-57]]) are therefore DENIED.
Finally, Mr. Davis requests that all judgments in cases that were before the undersigned be
vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b) and the matters transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr.
Davis's filings, which focus on an alleged conspiracy- the members of which purportedly include
various attorneys, members oflaw enforcement, health-care providers, and numerous governmental
actors-does not satisfy any of the requirements for relief under Rule 60(b). His motions (No. 5: 114

CT-3258-F [DE-20, DE-21; DE-22]; No. 5:12-CV-493-F [DE- 56; DE-57]; No. 5:14-CV-4-F [DE43]) seeking relief from the court's previous orders and judgments are therefore DENIED. Any
further requests from relief, such as his request to transfer his actions to another venue, are
necessarily DENIED as moot.
Finally, some of Mr. Davis's filings-although docketed in civil actions before the
undersigned-reference his criminal action pending in this court or seek relief in actions that were
once pending before another district judge. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to redocket the filings in No.5: 12-CV-493-F, Docket Entry 55-2, pages 1-2 in Davis v. Perdue, No. 5:12CV-593-FL, and pages 3-6 in Davis v. Singer, No. 5:08-CV-186-FL. The Clerk of Court is further
DIRECTED to docketacopyofNo. 5:12-CV-493-F [DE-56; DE-57] and No. 5:14-CV-4-F [DE-43]
in the criminal action United States v. Davis, 5:14-CR-240-F.
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter this order in each of the above-captioned actions.

Mr. Davis's motions for leave (No. 5:12-CV-493-F [DE-55; DE-55-1]) are DENIED as moot. His
other motions (No. 5:11-CT-3258-F [DE-20, DE-21; DE-22];No. 5:12-CV-493-F [DE- 56; DE-57];
No. 5:14-CV-4-F [DE-43]) are DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED tore-docket the filings in Docket Entry 55-2, pages 1-2
into Davis v. Perdue, No. 5:12-CV-593-FL, and pages 3-6 in Docket Entry 55-2, pages 3-6, into

Davis v. Singer, No. 5:08-CV-186-FL. The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to docket a copy
ofNo. 5:12-CV-493-F [DE-56; DE-57] and No. 5:14-CV-4-F [DE-43] in the criminal action United

States v. Davis, 5:14-CR-240-F.

5

SO ORDERED.
~

This, the_!! day of July, 2015. ·

JAMES C. FOX
Senior United States District Judge

6