You are on page 1of 5
NORTH CAROLINA: IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION WAKE COUNTY: 11 Cvs 001559 RODNEY-DALE CLASS Private Attorney General, Petitioner, vs NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ZT AL., Respondents. ORDER RE: RECUSAL AND RESCHEDULING OF HEARING ON RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S JUDICIAL REVIEW BEFORE ANOTHER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE THIS MATTER was set before the undersigned Superior Court Judge on April 21, 2011, at the regularly schedule non-jury motion calendar in Wake Superior Court for a scheduled 15 minute motion brought by the Respondents to dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Judicial Review. The Court file contained several filings by Mr. Class consisting of more than 35 pages of legal arguments relating to Mr. Class’s claims against Respondents. ‘The Court heard arguments but there was simply no way given the limited time for the hearing and the fact that this was one motion out of more than 30 motions on the calendar for that week, that the Court could absorb the materials submitted. The Court took the matter under advisement. At the close of the week, the Court had to concern itself with the regular business of the Court and due to the press of.work, the Court put this file in line with other matters that were under advisement. Thereafter, on May 5, 2011, the Court received a mailing from Mr. Class with a proposed Declaratory Judgment as Mr. Class’s pleadings contained in the Court file asked for a Declaratory Judgment. Thereafter, Mr. Class submitted a document referencing May 9, 2011 and containing information relating to title certificates and information relating to Mr. Class’ case. These were placed with the file pending the Court having an opportunity to sit down and review the complete file. During the month of May, the Court had to preside in Court in other matters and take an administrative week to work on the Leandro school case. On dune 5, 2011, the Court suffered an injury to its hip area and had to receive physical therapy and remain at home for a week. Thereafter, the Court returned to work and to conduct its regularly assigned duties. On June 16, 2011, the Court received correspondence from Mr. Class about the case. During the ‘week of June 20, 2011, the Court prepared for ~- and conducted two days of hearings in the Leandro school case on June 22 and 23, wherein the plaintiff school districts requested the Court to grant injunctive relief relating to the budget adopted by the General Assembly and a ruling on the validity of moving the More at Four Pre- Kindergarten program from the Department of Public Instruction to the Department of Health and Human Services. This matter took up a considerable amount of the Court’s time and attention following the hearing. On the week of duly 4, 2011, the Court had a criminal trial and continued to work on the Leandro school matters. The Court was given two weeks of administrative time in which to work on the Leandro school matters and on July 18, 2011, the Court entered an Order relating to the pre-kindergarten issue. Upon the Court's return on July 25, 2011 for a week of criminal court, the Court wrote to Mr. Class and advised ‘that it had reviewed the matters and proposed decision but_ had not been able to come to a final decision due to the press of other matters. The Court requested that Mr. Class send an affidavit setting out the facts about what actually had happened to him to generate the controversy so the Court could better understand his arguments. The Court advised Mr. Class that it was sorry that it had taken so long to get to the matter. The Court’s letter was written on July 25, 2011. on July 28, 2011, the Court received in the mail, a Petition for Execution on Judgment of some 5 pages which had been signed by Mr. Class on July 22, 2011 and thereafter mailed to the Court. The Court put this filing in the file to await Mr. Class’ affidavit regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding his complaints. Obviously, this document was signed and written before Mr.Class received the Court’s letter of July 25, 2011. On August 5, 2011, the afternoon mail brought in Mr. Class’s affidavit as requested by the Court and it was reviewed by the Court on Monday morning August 8, 2011. During the week of August 8, 2011, the Court presided over a five day medical malpractice case which ended at 5:20 p.m. on Friday, August 12, 2011. The Court has now had'the opportunity to review Mr. Class’s prior Petition for Execution on Judgment which was received by mail on July 28, 2011. First of all, there is no 90 day time limit on this Court or any Superior Court Judge's review of this matter or any other Petition for Judicial Review. In reviewing Mr. Class’ Petition for Execution on Judgment the Court read several derogatory and incorrect allegations about the Court. The Court will set out paragraphs 6 and 7 of said Petition in their entirety: 6. It appears that after 90 days Judge Manning is not willing to place such a judgment against the Defendants before the court as it (the court) may have a conflict of interest. 7. Petitioner now demands a trial by jury to resolve this issue and take the decision making out of Judge Manning’s hands. The Petitioner was allowed to believe that Judge Manning would be fair and unbiased (as his job description requires), but it now appears that Judge Manning may have either been threatened by the Defendants for doing his duty (job) under Judicial Review of Administrative Misconduct of a public office/officer or has decided to violate his duty (job) as a judge to help cover up for Defendants unlawful acts, and abuse of the FEDERAL HIGHWAY SAFETY acT. None of the foregoing disparaging comments about this Court are true. However, the Court is not going to do anything further in this case because of these allegations by Mr. Class. It is unfortunate that the Court’s July 25, 2011, letter to Mr. Class arrived after Mr. Class’s Petition was written