Wake County NC Human Services v. Davis

Filing 31

ORDER denying 28 Motion Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P 60(b); denying 29 Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b) ; denying 30 Motion pursuant to Rules 17 and 60; denying 25 Motion pursuant to Rule 59. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 4/9/2017. Certified copy sent via US Mail to William Scott Davis, Jr. atButner - F.M.C., P.O. Box 1600, Butner, NC 27509. (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. 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

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?