Motion To Disqualify Allen Baddour
Motion To Disqualify Allen Baddour
Motion To Disqualify Allen Baddour
v.
pursuant to North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 3, § C), for the
case. The case is in the post-conviction phase, and not yet formally docketed
in the North Carolina Appeals Court. Thus, it is still in this court’s jurisdiction
and open to motions for appropriate relief. In support of this motion, Mr. Fuller
other than a desire to improve the legal system are not justified.”
3. Mr. Fuller brings this motion within the following framework: Mr. Fuller
aims to improve our state’s legal system as it relates to the state’s compliance
4. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) states, “Any justice [or] judge ... shall disqualify himself
7. To wit, per Canon 3, § C(c), Mr. Baddour has a financial interest in this
Court Judge.
1 Amended by Order of the Supreme Court of North Carolina on November 6, 2015.
2 See discussion of the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 as applied in Pulliam v. Allen.
3 See derivative cases: 7:18-cv-00059-FL (EDNC) and USCA4 19-1110.
2
9. The State of North Carolina receives more than $15 billion in federal
to ensure compliance with federal disability laws in all of its governmental units.
10. Mr. Fuller has asserted that state judges, including Mr. Baddour, have an
11. A USDOJ amicus curiae brief prepared in 1993 in Santiago v. Garcia, 98-
1993 supports this theory. In this dispute, a deaf pro se litigant requested ADA
in his own trial. Here are some quotes from Santiago that are germane to this
present motion:
Defendants [state judges] have moved to dismiss on several grounds. The
United States as amicus curiae urges the Court to deny the motions as to
plaintiff’s ADA claim, because contrary to the basis on which the Defendants
seek such dismissal:
(i) Plaintiff has pleaded a prima facie case under title II of the ADA.
(iii) Under title II of the ADA the Defendants can be sued in their official
capacities.
(iv) Judges do not enjoy absolute immunity for acts that are administrative rather
than judicial in nature.
Given the abrogation of state immunity by the ADA, claims can be brought
against a state judge in his/her individual or official capacity under the ADA but
for the doctrine of judicial immunity.
In its enforcement of the ADA, the United States has seen that [state] courts
establish system-wide administrative policies and leave the task of processing
individual requests to system-wide administrators rather than individual judges.
This court should not dismiss [state judges] from the case before plaintiff has an
opportunity to prove that the Judge acted administratively, not judicially, when
3
refusing plaintiff’s [ADA request].
For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that this court
deny Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The salient point from Santiago is that the process of receiving, evaluating,
found that immunity defenses do not apply when a qualified disabled party is
prevented from having equal access to the state court system itself.
13. In Lane, the U.S. Supreme Court recounted congressional studies showing
state courts that have persisted long after the ADA was passed. Here are some
4
Mr. Baddour Involved in a Federal Legal Controversy
14. On April 4, 2018, Mr. Fuller filed an 18-page federal complaint against six
judicial officials employed by the State of North Carolina:
Defendant Rebecca W. Holt superior court judge
Defendant Richard A. Baddour superior court judge
Defendant James C. Stanford clerk of court
Defendant James T. Bryan, III district court judge
Defendant Samantha Hyatt Cabe district court judge
Defendant Catherine C. Stevens emergency district court judge
15. Mr. Fuller made the following claims in his initial complaint:
Orange County, NC, presided over by Superior Court Judge George Bryan Collins,
Jr., who later set a $50,000 secured bond in abstenia in the $1,000 fine on appeal.
17. According to the NIH4, Fuller’s mental disorder manifests as oscillating
patterns between being too withdrawn and being too intrusive. The key concepts
are as follows:
4 https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-adhd/index.shtml
5
“These problems are not due to defiance or lack of comprehension.”
18. On November 20, 2018, Mr. Fuller’s federal lawsuit against Orange County
judicial officials was dismissed with prejudice, based upon two technicalities
related to immunity. The legal question was one of relief, as the Defendants’
claimed two forms of immunity: judicial and sovereign. However, the undisputed
facts, as summarized by Judge Louise Flanigan, make it quite clear that Mr. Fuller’s
federal rights had indeed been violated by the State of North Carolina in the
19. Title II of the ADA, provides that, “no qualified individual with a disability
20. Quoting from a recent USDOJ amicus brief, the United States argued that
“to state a claim under title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove three elements:
(i) that he is a qualified individual with a disability, (ii) that he was discriminated
services, and (iii) that he was discriminated against because of his disability.
21. Mr. Fuller has sued Mr. Baddour in federal court, alleging ADA retaliation,
which is technically a separate claim that survives even the underlying claims.
22. An ADA Title II retaliation claim has three elements: (i) Plaintiff engages in
a protected activity such as suing a state judge for ADA violations, (ii) materially
adverse actions are taken against Plaintiff by other state judges with knowledge
of the lawsuit, and (3) a requisite level of causal connection exists between the
6
23. To be clear, Mr. Fuller does not seek to gain tactical advantage in this
Court via Mr. Baddour’s disqualification. Rather Mr. Fuller seeks due process
24. State judges can be sued in federal court when violations of federally
protected civil rights are alleged under § 1983. In such disputes, reasonable
attorney’s fees may be awarded to the Plaintiff. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S.
522 (1984).
requested to promptly file written notice to that effect in this docket, thereby
terminating this motion from being set for a hearing. Otherwise, Petioner
requests that the Clerk of Superior Court schedule this motion for a special
all parties, as time is of the essence. The State is hereby requested to enter
objections.
or conclusion neither about Mr. Baddour’s actions nor Mr. Fuller’s pending
lawsuit(s). Rather, Mr. Fuller’s focus is upon the spirit of the federal law, 28
U.S.C. § 455, “Any justice [or] judge ... shall disqualify himself in any proceeding
7
have traditionally afforded some leeway to compensate for self-represented
parties lacking legal training: pro se pleadings are held to “an especially liberal
standard.” See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520 (1971) and Melvin Finance, Inc.
v. Artis, 157 N.C. App. 716, 2003 WL 21153426 (N.C. App.) This principal is
SWORN DECLARATION: I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts
stated in which I have personal knowledge, are true and correct to the best of my ability.
This being the 24th day of April 2019; a 12-page document submitted by US mail from
blank
5 Both the United States District Court (E.D.N.C.) and the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th
Circuit have issued orders in 2019 that Mr. Fuller is to receive federal disability accommodations in terms of
court interactions regarding his mental disability in the interest of justice.
8
Attached, as a good showing of related federal litigation, are three 1-page Exhibits:
A: United States District Court
B: United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
C: United States Supreme Court
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the petitioner, NAPIER SANDFORD FULLER, pro se, certify that on the date above, I served a copy of this
pleading upon the opposing party by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail with prepaid, first-class
postage and/or via email. I have been instructed that the following individuals might be the State’s agent, but no order of
representation has been filed in the docket of 17-CRS-050340 and thus such representation is speculative.
Both attorneys named below will also be sued in the forth coming federal litigation for the very same reasons as
described in this motion of disqualification: they participated actively in violations of federal law by ignoring, denying,
discriminating, and or retaliating against Mr. Fuller’s efforts to obtain federally protected disability accommodations as it
relates to equal access to the State Courts of Justice. USDOJ guidelines may it clear that such federal protections, invoked
by defendants, apply equally to prosecutors as agents of the State and immunity has been specifically abrogated by the
US Congress as a result of the State accepting federal funds.
The petitioner, NAPIER SANDFORD FULLER, pro se, aver that I have been ordered by this Orange County Superior
Court to (1) never contact the Orange County prosecutors, and to (2) never contact “any judge” in this Orange County
Superior Court by threat of imprisonment of 30 days and/or a loss of a secured bond of $50,000.
I AVER THESE EXCESSIVE POST-CONVICTION BOND CONDITIONS, IN THE APPEAL OF A $1,000 FINE, FURTHER
PREVENT COMMUNICATION AND COMPLIANCE REGARDING MY ADA DISABILITY REQUESTS, ARE THINLY VEILED
ACTS OF RETALIATION FOR FILLING AN ADA LAWSUIT, AND HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY DEPRIVED ME OF FEDERALLY
PROTECTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. SUCH ACTS, OMISSIONS, AND FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
ARE ACTIONABLE BY FUTURE TORT LITIGATION VIA 42 U.S.C. § 1983-1988. A US DISTRICT COURT RECENTLY
CONCLUDED (SEE PAGE 3-4, DE #70, CASE 7:18-CV-00059-FL) THAT MR. FULLER WAS UNLAWFULLY DENIED
FEDERALLY MANDATED DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS IN HIS PRO SE APPEARANCES IN ORANGE COUNTY.
9
Exh
ibi
tA
10
Exh
ibi
tB
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1110 22
Doc: 19 Filed: 04/17/2019
03/19/2019 Pg: 1 of 30
17
No. 19-1110
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Defendants-Appellees.
CONSOLIDATED INFORMAL
INFORMAL BRIEF BRIEF
FOR
INFORMAL FOR
THE THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
APPELLANT BRIEF
N. S. FULLER, pro se
Plaintiff-Appellant
P.O. Box 7091
Wilmington NC 28406-7091
910.262.2359
[email protected]
11
Exh
ibi
tC
12