Davis v. Ratledge

Opinion

1 BOR bee □□ □□□□□

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT wy ey ales

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA rae □ EASTERN DIVISION CASE NO. 5:24-CV-00440-FL

This the 30 dayor May 29 25 MICHAEL SCOTT DAVIS and /s/Louise W. Flanagan, U.S. District Judge STETSON MANSFIELD WEBSTER, REQUEST FOR PLAINTIFFS, CLARIFICATION REGARDING V. BASIS FOR DISMISSAL

BRIAN RATLEDGE, JULIE BELL, JENNIFER BEDFORD and DAMION MCCULLERS,

DEFENDANTS.

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING BASIS FOR DISMISSAL

(In Light of Williams v. Reed, 604 U.S. ___ (2025) Regarding Procedural Foreclosure of Independent § 1983 Constitutional Claims) To the Honorable District Court: Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Request for Clarification concerning the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, entered March 5, 2025 (ECF No. 52), and the related denial of declaratory relief and supplemental pleadings entered October 28, 2024 (ECF No. 32). This request is submitted not for reconsideration, but to respectfully document and understand the specific rationale by which Plaintiffs’ claims—explicitly brought under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983—-were deemed barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine despite having been framed as independent constitutional violations.