Davis v. Manning et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 7 Motion to vacate all orders and judgments pursuant to Rule 60(b). Signed by Chief Judge Richard E. Myers II on 2/11/2021. Copy sent to William Scott Davis, Jr., 84944-083, Thomson AUSP, U.S. Penitentiary, PO Box 1002, Thomson, IL 61285 via US Mail. (Edwards, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.
V.

SHERRI SCIDEGGER, et al.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00026-M

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS , JR.
V.

DANIELLE DOYLE, et al.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00027-M

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS , JR.
V.

NANCY BERSON, et al.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00028-M

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.
V.

ROBIN STRICKLAND, et al.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00029-M

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS , JR.
V.

WENDY KIRWAN, et al.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00030-M

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.
V.

WAKE COUNTY, et al.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00031-M

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.
V.

JOE BRYANT, et al.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00032-M

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.
V.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00033-M

TOWN OF CARY

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.
V.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00034-M

TOWN OF CARY, et al.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS , JR.
V.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00035-M

SYDNEY BATCH, et al.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS , JR.
V.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00036-M

MELANIE SHIKITA, et al.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.
V.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00037-M

MELANIE SHIKITA, et al.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS , JR.
V.

Case No . 5:20-MC-00038-M

MICHELLE SAVAGE, et al.

WILLIAM SCOTT DA VIS, JR.
V.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00039-M

ERIC CRAIG CHASSE, et al.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS , JR.
V.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00040-M

THOMAS C. MANNING, et al.

2

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS , JR. ,
V.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00041-M

WAKE COUNTY, et al.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.
V.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00042-M

ROBERT J. PIKE, et al.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.
V.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00043-M

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS , JR.
V.

Case No. 5:20-MC-00049-M

W. EARL BRITT, et al.

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECUSAL
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to vacate all orders and judgments in the abovecaptioned cases, which the court construes as a motion seeking the undersigned' s recusal (or,
"disqualification") from adjudicating the cases. DE 7. For the following reasons, the motion is
DENIED.
By law, a judge must disqualify himself under the following circumstances :
(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:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a
lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a
lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness
concerning it;
3

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated
as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an
opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child
residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy
or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected
by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of
them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected
by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
28 U.S. C.A. § 4 5 5. Plaintiff neither cites this statute nor articulates any of its bases in support of
his request for this court's recusal.
Rather, Plaintiff references a May 21, 2018 order "designat[ing] [ ] a United States judge
for service in another district within the circuit" executed by the Honorable Roger L. Gregory,
Chief United States Appeals Judge.

DE 7 at 2.

The order "designate[s] and assign[s] the

Honorable James P. Jones, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, to
hold a district court in the Eastern District of North Carolina" for two of Plaintiffs cases, 5; 17MC-19 and 5:18-MC-8 "for such time as needed in advance to prepare and thereafter as required
to complete unfinished business in the matters." Id. The order does not mention any of the abovecaptioned cases and, in fact, was issued more than two years before Plaintiff commenced the within
cases.

The court finds it is not bound by the order, and nothing in the order prohibits the

undersigned from adjudicating the cases listed above.

4

Accordingly, the court concludes Plaintiff fails to articulate any basis on which the court
must recuse from adjudicating the above-captioned cases and DENIES the Plaintiffs motion.

SO ORDERED this / ~ day of February, 2021.

r2L-t r: /Yl~

::Ib

RICHARD E. MYERS II
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5