Davis v. Bousman et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying 65 Rule 60(b) Motion. The motions to reopen case and for relief under Rule 60(b) in each of the above-captioned cases are DENIED. The Court will consider critically any future filings by Mr. Davis in which it is apparent that he is me rely seeking to avoid the pre-filing injunction. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 12/21/2016. Certified copy sent to William Scott Davis via US mail to P.O. Box 1600, Butner, NC 27509. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 12/21/2016. (Stouch, L.)

Download PDF
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. ) ) ) ) 5: 14-CV -46-BO ) WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Defendant. WAKE COUNTY NC HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff, V. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 5:14-CV-47-BO ) WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Defendant. ) ) ) ) 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. 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 reopening of these cases as a method by which to avoid the pre-filing injunction. 1 The Court will not sanction such action. 1 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). 2 Accordingly, the motions to reopen case and for relief under Rule 60(b) in each of the above-captioned 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~ day of December, 2016. T RRENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD 3

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?