Civil Rights Defendant Judges Ratledge and Bell Flout Federal and State Law, Refuse to Recuse Themselves

[FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE]

RALEIGH, NC, October 8 2024 — In a bold display of defiance, Federal Civil Rights Defendant Judges Brian Ratledge and Julie Bell have refused to recuse themselves from cases involving plaintiffs who have named them in a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The lawsuit, brought by Michael Scott Davis and Stetson Mansfield Webster, alleges ongoing systemic violations of due process and equal protection. This refusal to step aside, despite undeniable conflicts of interest, signals what many see as unchecked hubris from judges who, by their actions, appear to consider themselves above the very laws they are sworn to uphold.

Plaintiffs Davis and Webster argue that the actions of Judges Ratledge and Bell exemplify what looks to be a deep-rooted arrogance within the Wake County judicial system—an attitude that suggests they can act with impunity and enjoy immunity from accountability. This brazen rejection of the judges’ legal and ethical duties raises urgent questions about how far these judges are willing to go to protect their own interests, even when doing so openly defies federal and state laws.

Defiance of Legal and Ethical Responsibilities

Judge Brian Ratledge’s refusal to step down from Plaintiff Davis’s upcoming October 30, 2024, trial—despite being a named defendant in a lawsuit that directly challenges his previous rulings—has sparked outrage. “This isn’t just a conflict of interest—it’s a deliberate and arrogant dismissal of legal obligations as a judge,” said Plaintiff Davis. The lawsuit highlights Ratledge’s history of judicial misconduct, including violations that led to Davis’s unlawful arrest and detention. This latest behavior, Davis argues, further demonstrates how Ratledge manipulates his position to evade accountability.

Judge Julie Bell’s similar refusal to recuse herself from Plaintiff Webster’s case, while also delegating key procedural decisions to her staff, shines a spotlight on the judicial overreach is continues to engage in. Despite Webster’s formal motion for her recusal, Bell’s behavior further illustrates the unchecked power she wields within the courtroom. “By ignoring the very laws that are designed to prevent judicial bias, Judge Bell continues sending a clear message that she believes she is above the law,” said Webster.

Both judges are required under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) to recuse themselves from any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Yet, their blatant refusal to follow these federal guidelines further demonstrates the culture of impunity permeating the judiciary and those who, through their actions and inactions, continue to enable it.

The plaintiffs argue that this is part of a larger pattern where judges like Ratledge and Bell, along with those who support and enable them, operate with near-total immunity—indifferent, and even hostile, toward the rights of the people standing before them.

Demand for Federal Intervention and Oversight

The plaintiffs are calling for immediate federal intervention, emphasizing that without external oversight, the behavior of judges like Ratledge and Bell will continue unchecked, further undermining public trust.

“Constitutional rights should not be optional for those in power, nor denied to those whom they deem undeserving,” said Davis and Webster in a joint statement.

Motion for Leave | Supplemental Complaint | Supplemental Memorandum of Law

Different Sizing for Social Media / Additional Outlets