Meet Gavin Davis

Mr. Davis is a  business professional with four billion ($4,000,000,000) of corporate finance and commercial real estate transaction experience, and graduate of Cornell University (B.S. ’00) has three (3) pending 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Deprivation of Civil Rights lawsuits:

 

1. Ninth Circuit, 18-56107, Davis v. SD Sheriff Dept., Denied “Bounds” Access to Courts (violation of each of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment, and Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments), while unlawfully detained, pre-trial on Excessive and Punitive Bail (itself pending separate litigation, 9th Cir., 18-56202).  This Appeal is fully briefed ((i) Opening Brief (ECF 4, 8/19/18); (ii) Excerpts of Record (ECF 3, 8/18/18); (iii) Answering Brief (ECF 24, 11/13/18); (iv) Reply Brief (ECF 26, 11/13/18); (v) Supplemental Brief (ECF 14, 9/3/18)—Plaintiff is believed to be the first self-litigant to ever have a Supplemental brief accepted in the Ninth Circuit.  In addition, there is a pending Motion for FRCP 23 Class Certification (ECF 23, 11/13/18) and assignment of class counsel. Further, a Motion to subpoena preserved CTT Video and photographic evidence of Plaintiff-Appellant being beaten and almost killed while in the custody of the Defendant (ECF 22, 11/11/18) is pending.

 

1. Ninth Circuit, 18-56202, Davis v. SDDA et. al., a priori, held pre-trial, on Excessive and Punitive bail (prominent national and state issues) in violation of each of the 4th and 8th Amendments.  This Appeal is fully briefed ((i) Opening Brief (ECF 5, 9/6/18); (ii) Excerpts of Record (ECF 4, 9/6/18); (iii) Answering Brief (ECF 31, 12/6/18); (iv) Reply Brief (ECF 33, 12/7/18); (v) Supplemental Brief (ECF 24, 11/19/18).

 

1. USDC SD Cal, 18-2824, Davis v. Timothy G. O’Connor, Brady and Ca PC § 1054 (CA Brady analog/parallel) violations, where federal case law authority definitively states and finds that such violations are not strategic or tactical; and, in such capacity prosecutors therefore do not enjoy immunity, but are actionable as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  Complaint filed and Summons issued on December 17, 2018. Of note, in part, the underlying pending California criminal charge (San Diego, M242946DV) is: (a) latent (and therefore unlawful in such capacity); (b) brought by defendant’s ex-father-in-law, a federal felon (USDC DA, United States of America v. J. Gregory Unruh (1995)), and non-credible person; and, (c) for matters, generally, related to his own evasion of federal litigation as a defendant.  Petitioner (defendant therein) is represented by the professional laws firm of Ronis & Ronis (San Diego, CA).  M242946DV was dismissed, pre-trial on February 19, 2019.

​

“[42 U.S.C.] Section 1983 was intended to provide “a uniquely federal remedy” (Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 239 [1972]) with “broad and sweeping protection” (Lynch v. Household Fin. Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 543 [1972] [quoting with approval]) “read against the background of tort liability that makes a man responsible for the natural consequences of his actions” (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187 [1961], overruled in part, to expand government liability, in Monell, 436 U.S. 658) so that individuals in a wide variety of factual situations are able to obtain a federal remedy when their federally protected rights are abridged (Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42, 50, 55 [1984]).”  (Knick v. Township of Scott, PA, 647 U.S., Amicus Brief of Institute for Justice, 20 (2017))