William Davis, Jr. v. W. Britt, No. 19-6172 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 21, 2020.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6172 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HON. W. EARL BRITT; JEFF SESSIONS, USAG; JAMES GARNETT, JR., PRJ; DONAL HUNTER, PRJ; USMS UNKNOWN DEPUTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-00166-MSD-LRL) Submitted: June 27, 2019 Decided: July 17, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order transferring his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court entered its transfer order on May 25, 2018. Davis did not file his notice of appeal until January 2019. However, prior to filing his notice of appeal, Davis filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. The district court received Davis’ motion on June 25, 2018. In order for the Rule 60 motion to render Davis’ notice of appeal timely filed as to the underlying transfer order, the motion was due on June 22, 2018. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Because Davis is incarcerated, the motion is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988). The record does not reveal when Davis gave the Rule 60 motion to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to obtain this information from Davis and to determine whether the filing was timely under Houston v. Lack. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.