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.)

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