Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Biobele Georgewill, Petitioner v. Joshua M. Ball, et al.

Supreme Court briefSep 5, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FILED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

08/29/2025

Clerk of the

Appellate Courts

BIOBELE GEORGEWILL v. JOSHUA M. BALL, ET AL.

Circuit Court for Hamilton County

No. 25C-293

No. E2025-00911-SC-R10-CV

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a recusal appeal filed by Biobele Georgewill.

On June 12, 2025, Georgewill filed a motion in the Tennessee Court of Appeals seeking

recusal of Court of Appeals Judge Kristi M. Davis. Judge Davis found no basis for

recusal and entered an order denying the motion on June 25, 2025. Georgewill filed a

motion for court review, which a panel of the Court of Appeals denied on July 18, 2025.

Georgewill has now filed a Petition for Review and Supporting Brief, which we construe

as a recusal appeal from the Court of Appeals pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule

10B § 3.02(c).

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Judge Davis properly denied

the motion to recuse. As Judge Davis recognized, the motion is defective because it does

not “affirmatively state that it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to

harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” Tenn.

Supr. Ct. R. 10B, § 3.01. The motion also is not “supported by an affidavit under oath or

a declaration under penalty of perjury on personal knowledge.” Id. Finally, even

, assuming the motion complied with these requirements, no person of ordinary prudence

could reasonably question Judge Davis’s impartiality in this case. The mere fact that

Judge Davis worked at Hodges, Doughty, & Carson PLLC eleven years ago is insufficient

to require her recusal.

Georgewill filed a supplemental motion to recuse Judge Davis in the Court of

Appeals on July 28, 2025, which largely made the same arguments as the first recusal

motion. Judge Davis again found no basis for recusal and entered an order denying the

motion on August 1, 2025. Georgewill did not file a motion in the Court of Appeals

seeking court review of the August 1, 2025 order. Consequently, that order is not

appealable to this Court under Rule 10B. See Tenn. Supr. Ct. R. 10B § 3.02(c) (allowing

an appeal to the Supreme Court where a motion for court review was denied or unavailable

in the intermediate appellate court).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this recusal appeal is DENIED.

are taxed to Biobele Georgewill, for which execution may issue if necessary.

PER CURIAM

Costs

FILED

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

07/18/2025

Clerk of the

Appellate Courts

BIOBELE GEORGEWILL v. JOSHUA M. BALL et al.

Circuit Court for Hamilton County

No. 25C-293

No. E2025-00911-COA-UNK-CV

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon what this Court construed as a Tenn. Sup. Ct.

R. 10B § 3.02(b) motion filed by the pro se appellant, Biobele Georgewill, for court review

of an order entered by Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II, and an order entered by Judge Kristi

M. Davis, wherein Judge Frierson and Judge Davis each denied Ms. Georgewill’s motions

seeking their recusal. The motion for court review was timely filed. Because the motion

for review must be decided by three judges of this court who were not subjects of the

recusal motions, see Tenn. Sup. Ct R. 10B § 3.02(b), the motion for court review was

assigned to Chief Judge D. Michael Swiney, Judge J. Steven Stafford, and Judge John W.

McClarty.

Under Rule 10B § 3.02(b), the three-judge review panel must review the motion

upon a de novo standard of review. “De novo” is defined as “anew, afresh, a second time.”

Simms Elec., Inc. v. Roberson Assocs., Inc., No. 01-A-01-9011-CV-00407, 1991 WL

44279, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 1991) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed.

1979)). As a consequence, we have examined the record anew, with no presumption of

correctness, and reached our own conclusion. Gentry v. Gentry, No. M2016-01765-COAR3-CV, 2016 WL 7176981, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 9,2016).

Upon consideration of the appellant’s two motions seeking the recusal of Judge

Frierson and Judge Davis, we conclude, as did Judge Frierson and Judge Davis, that the

appellant’s motions are not in compliance with Rule 10B in that they do not “affirmatively

state that it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause

unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation” and the motions are not

“supported by an affidavit under oath or a declaration under penalty of perjury on personal

knowledge. ...” Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 3.01. Rule 10B requires a litigant seeking the

recusal of a judge to file a written motion that strictly complies with Rule 10B. See

Burkhart v. Burkhart, No. M2023-01390-CDA-T10B-CV, 2023 WL 6818637, at *4 (Tenn.

CamScanncr

Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2023). The appellant has not complied with the requirements of Tenn.

Sup. Ct. R. 10B.

Even reviewing the allegations in the motion for recusal, the appellant has not

demonstrated that recusal is required in this appeal by either Judge Frierson or Judge Davis.

As to Judge Frierson, the appellant states in her motion for recusal that she previously filed

a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Michael Jenne, who is the judge whose

denial of recusal she is appealing in a separate but related appeal, Biobele Georgewill v.

CMH Homes, Inc., No. E2025-00865-COA-T10B-CV. The appellant argues that because

Judge Frierson ruled on the previous judicial misconduct complaint, such involvement

“raises a reasonable question as to his impartiality in this matter.” The motion does not

specify in what capacity Judge Frierson had ruled on such judicial complaint against Judge

Jenne. In a separate Motion to Transfer Venue or Panel Due to Conflict of Interest, the

appellant further states that Judge Frierson had been on a panel of judges that had

previously denied her petition for writ of mandamus, which allegedly had presented an

appearance of bias and prejudgment.1

In the aforementioned motions, the appellant’s allegations against Judge Frierson

are essentially that he has participated in certain proceedings and ruled against her in the

past. As Judge Frierson stated in his order denying recusal, our Supreme Court has held

that adverse rulings, “even if erroneous, numerous and continuous, do not, without more,

justify disqualification.” Adams v. Dunavant, 674 S.W.3d 871, 879 (Tenn. 2023) (quoting

Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810, 821 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)); see also State v. Cannon,

254 S.W.3d 287,308 (Tenn. 2008); State v. Reid, 213 S.W.3d 792,816 (Tenn. 2006); Davis

v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560, 565 (Tenn. 2001).

In subsequent motions seeking a “rehearing en banc” and contesting the denial of

recusal by Judge Frierson, the appellant expands her allegations against Judge Frierson to

state that he is a current member of the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct, that he had

participated in a review of the misconduct complaint of Judge Jenne, and that his

knowledge and involvement with the judicial complaint created “a direct conflict of interest

and a reasonable appearance of bias.” The allegation that Judge Frierson is a current

member of the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct is a new allegation that was not in the

original motion to recuse filed on June 12, 2025. Nonetheless, this Court takes judicial

notice of the Administrative Office of the Courts’s website identifying the current members

and officers of the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct, which does not list Judge Frierson

as a member. See Officers & Members, Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts,

1 We note that the order denying the appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus to which the appellant refers

is in a separate appeal, Biobele Georgewill v. Clayton Homes, Inc., No. E2025-00308-COA-WRM-CV.

That order, like nearly all orders of this Court, was entered “per curiam,” which literally translates to “by

the court.” Per curiam orders are always decided by one or .more judges of the Court, but do not identify

the particular judges involved. It is unclear why the appellant believes Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II; Judge

Kristi M. Davis; and Justice Jeffrey S. Bivens are the panel ofjudges deciding that appeal.

CamScanner

https://tncourts.gov/boards-commissions/board-judicial-conduct/officers-members (last

visited July 17, 2025). Based on the foregoing, Ms. Georgewill has failed to demonstrate

actual bias or produce evidence that would prompt a person of ordinary prudence in Judge

Frierson’s position, with knowledge of all facts known to Judge Frierson, to find a

“reasonable basis for questioning (the judge’s] impartiality.” See Adams, 674 S.W.3d at

878. Therefore, we find no error in Judge Frierson’s denial of Ms. Georgewill’s motion

for recusal.

As to the allegation against Judge Davis in the motion for recusal, the appellant

simply argues that Judge Davis’s previous affiliation with the law firm of Hodges, Doughty

& Carson, PLLC, “raises a legitimate concern regarding impartiality” or creates an

appearance of a conflict of interest that would undermine “public confidence in the

integrity and neutrality of the judiciary.” As Judge Davis pointed out, she had not been

employed by such law firm for more than ten years, which does not by itself require recusal.

See Tyus v. Pugh Farms, Inc., No. W2011-00826-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 938509, at *4

(Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 19,2012). In her motion to recuse, the appellant provided no further

evidence of a lack of impartiality other than pure speculation that such prior affiliation will

affect Judge Davis’s impartiality. Such speculation, by itself, is unlikely to be sufficient to

require recusal. Kelly M. v. Agness M., No. E2024-00629-CGA-T10B-CV, 2024 WL

2564454, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2024). In the separate Motion to Transfer Venue

or Panel Due to Conflict of Interest, the appellant further includes that Judge Davis had

been on the panel of judges with Judge Frierson that had previously denied her petition for

writ of mandamus, which allegedly presented an appearance of bias and prejudgment.

Even if Judge Davis was on the panel of judges that had denied her petition for writ of

mandamus, such action would be an adverse ruling, which, without more, does not justify

disqualification of the judge. Adams, 674 S.W.3d at 879 (internal citations omitted).

In this case, the appellant’s speculation that Judge Davis’s prior affiliation with

Hodges, Doughty & Carson, PLLC will somehow affect her ability to be impartial and the

allegation that Judge Davis ruled against her as part of a panel of judges denying her

petition for writ of mandamus in another appeal are insufficient to necessitate Judge

Davis’s recusal in this appeal. As such, Ms. Georgewill has failed to provide evidence that

would prompt a person of ordinary prudence in Judge Davis’s position, with knowledge of

all facts known to Judge Davis, to find a “reasonable basis for questioning [the judge’s]

impartiality.” See Adams, 674 S.W.3d at 878. Therefore, we find no error in Judge Davis’s

denial of Ms. Georgewill’s motion for recusal.

For the foregoing reasons, this panel, having considered the Motion for Court

Review filed by Ms. Georgewill, concludes that the motion is not well taken. It is,

therefore, ordered that the motion is denied in all respects. The costs are assessed against

the appellant, Biobele Georgewill, for which execution may issue.

PER CURIAM

| CamScanner

FILED

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

06/25/2025

Clertt of the

Appellate Courts

BIOBELE GEORGEWILL v. JOSHUA M. BALL ET al.

Circuit Court for Hamilton County

No. 25C-293

No. E2025-00911-COA-UNK-CV

ORDER

On June 12, 2025, the appellant, Biobele Georgewill (“Appellant”), filed a motion

pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee seeking to have

Judge Kristi M. Davis of the Tennessee Court of Appeals recused from hearing this appeal.

The motion is not in compliance with the rule in that it does not “affirmatively state that it

is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary

delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation” and it is not “supported by an affidavit

under oath or a declaration under penalty of perjury on personal knowledge. . . ” Tenn.

Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 3.01. Rule 10B requires a litigant seeking the recusal of a judge to file

a written motion that strictly complies with Rule 10B. See Burkhart v. Burkhart, No.

M2023-01390-COA-T10B-CV, 2023 WL 6818637, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17,2023).

Furthermore, even if Appellant had complied with the requirements of Rule 10B,

Appellant’s motion alleges no grounds that would require recusal by the undersigned judge.

Appellant’s sole allegation for the undersigned judge’s recusal stems from the undersigned

judge’s previous employment as a partner at the law firm of Hodges, Doughty & Carson,

PLLC. However, the undersigned judge was last employed at Hodges, Doughty & Carson,

PLLC, in 2014, which is eleven years ago. Since that time, the undersigned judge has had

no further affiliation with the law firm. See Tyus v. Pugh Farms, Inc., No. W2011-00826COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 938509, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 19,2012) (holding that recusal

was not required when more than thirteen years had passed since the judge had any business

dealings with his former law firm and over ten years had passed since the judge had

received any compensation for outstanding legal matters owed to him by the law firm).

Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct as set forth in Rule 10 of the Rules of the

Supreme Court of Tennessee provides that “a judge shall act at all times in a manner that

promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the

;CamScanncr

judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” Mere

speculation that a judge’s ability to be impartial will be affected by a prior relationship

between the judge and a party or witness is likely not sufficient to necessitate recusal of

the judge. Kelly M. v. Agness M., No. E2024-00629-COA-T10B-CV, 2024 WL 2564454,

at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2024). Instead, allegations of bias or prejudice “must be

based on facts, not speculation or innuendo.” Id. (quoting Runyon v. Runyon, No. W201302651-COA-T10B-CV, 2014 WL 1285729, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31,2014).

The undersigned judge does not have an actual bias or prejudice against or toward

Appellant in this appeal, nor is the undersigned judge biased in favor of the law firm of

Hodges, Doughty & Carson, PLLC. In addition, no person of ordinary prudence in the

undersigned judge’ s position, knowing all of the facts as alleged in the motion and known

to the undersigned judge, would find a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s

impartiality in this case. Cf. Smith v. State, 357 S.W.3d 322, 341 (Tenn. 2011) (noting that

recusal is required, even if a judge subjectively believes he or she can be fair and impartial,

whenever “the judge’s impartiality might be reasonably questioned because the appearance

of bias is as injurious to the integrity of the judicial system as actual bias.” (quoting Bean

v. Bailey, 280 S.W.3d 798, 805 (Tenn. 2009))).

Because Appellant’s motion to recuse does not comply with the requirements of

Rule 10B and lacks a factual or legal basis, Appellant’s motion to recuse is hereby

DENIED.

CamScanncr

IN THE TENNESSEE COURT OF APPEALS AT KNOXVILLE

Cut No.: E2025-00911-COA-UNK-CV

Date: September 3,2026

Blobele Georgewlll, Plaintiff/Appellant v. Joshua M. Ball and Hodges Doughty and

Carson, PLLC, Defendante/Appellees

MOTION TO REFILE AND SUPPLEMENT RECORD WITH SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO

RECUSE JUDGE KRISTI M. DAVIS

Comes now, the Plalntiff/Appeflant, Blobele Georgewlll, and respectfully moves this

Court to accept and file the attached Supplemental Motion to Recuse Judge Kristi M.

Davis, and to supplement the appellate record accordingly. In support of this Motion,

Plaintiff states as follows:

1. Plaintiff previously prepared and submitted a Supplemental Motion to Recuse Judge Kristi M.

Davis, which included a sworn affidavit affirming that the motion was not submitted for purposes

of delay or harassment

2. Upon reviewing the appellate docket, Plaintiff discovered that the Supplemental Motion and

accompanying affidavit, and evidence were never entered into the docket or included in the

appellate record.

3. Plaintiff now has access to the e-filing system and is refiling the Supplemental Motion to

ensure it is properly docketed and considered by the Court

4. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court accept the refiling of the Supplemental Motion to

Recuse, beat it as part of the original appellate filings, and supplement the record with this

motion and the accompanying affidavit

5. Ffling and docketing this motion is necessary to ensure a complete and accurate record for

tile Court's consideration of the recusal issue.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court

a) Accept and docket the attached Supplemental Motion to Recuse Judge Kristi M. Davis;

b) Supplement the appellate record to include the Supplemental Motion and affidavit as part of

the original filings; and

c) Grant any other relief deemed appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Blobele Georgewlll - Plaintiff/ Appellant

423-561-5480

cs] Scanned with CamScanner

CS CamScanner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion was served via email on the

following parties on this 3rd day of September, 2025:

Jason Long, Esq.

Email: JLongQlewtsthomason.com and SYearyQlewfsthomason.com

Blobele Georgewlll

423 M1 6480

BlogoorgowfllQgmail.com

[cs] Scanned with CamScanner

CamScanner

IN THE TENNESSEE COURT OF APPEALS AT KNOXVILLE

Biobele Georgewill

Plaintiff,

Joshua M. Ball and Hodges, Doughty, and Carson PLLC

Defendants.

Case No.: E2025- 00911- COA- UNK- CV

Date: July 24,2025

Supplemental Motion for Recusal of Judge Kristi Davis

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to order the recusal of Judge Kristi Davis from any further

proceedings in this matter due to a reasonable question regarding her impartiality arising from

her prior partnership with the law firm Hodges, Doughty, and Carson PLLC, which is a

Defendant in this case.

Grounds for Recusal

1. Publicly available records confirm that Judge Kristi Davis was previously a partner at Hodges,

Doughty, and Carson PLLC, the same law firm that is a Defendant in this case.

2. The nature of a partnership involves financial interests, shared client networks, and

professional relationships that extend beyond mere employment creating an appearance of

partiality or bias.

3. The Court’s implication that the Plaintiff must demonstrate actual bias or a continuing

relationship with the defendant misinterprets the proper standard for judicial disqualification. The

issue is not whether the judge continues to work with the law firm, the Issue is that Hodges,

Doughty & Carson, PLLC is a named defendant in this matter, and the judge formerly practiced

law at that same firm.

a) See Exhibit A, a screenshot of publicly available records demonstrating Judge Kristi Davis’s

former partnership with the Defendant law firm, Hodges, Doughty, and Carson PLLC,

establishing a direct professional relationship between the judge and the defendant in this

matter.

CS CamScanner

[cs] Scanned with CamScanner

CS CamScanner

b) According to public records. Judge Kristi Davis was sworn in to the Tennessee Court of

Appeals on August 3,2020, after serving as a circuit court Judge since 2014. Prior to her Judicial

career, she was a partner at Hodges, Doughty & Carson PLLC in Knoxville for approximately 14

years. This long-standing professional association with the law firm, currently a defendant in this

matter, raises a reasonable question about her impartiality. Such an extensive connection goes

beyond mere past employment and presents an appearance of bias, warranting recusal under

applicable legal standards.

This is a direct and disqualifying prior relationship with a party to the case.

c) Under Rule 10, Canon 2.11 (AX1) of the Tennessee Code of Judicial Conduct, a Judge must

disqualify herself in any proceeding where her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In

this case, Judge Davis is presiding over an appeal in which her former law firm is the named

defendant. Although she may not have personally worked on the matter, her current role in

reviewing claims that could impact the rights or liabilities of her former firm creates an

appearance of impropriety. This situation gives rise to a direct constitutional concern under the

Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which guarantees litigants a fair and impartial

tribunal.

4. The appearance of impropriety atone, arising from the judge's prior professional affiliation with

a current defendant, is sufficient to warrant mandatory recusal. The standard is not whether

Appellant can prove actual bias, but whether a reasonable person would question the judge's

impartiality. That threshold is undeniably met here.

5. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must recuse himself or herself if the judge's impartiality

might reasonably be questioned. The United States Supreme Court has recognized in Caperton

v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), that even the appearance of bias violates due

process.

4. Under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10, RJC 2.11(A), the test for judicial recusal is whether "a person of

ordinary prudence in the judge's position, knowing all facts, would reasonably question the

Judge's impartiality.*

5. In Bean v. Bailey, 280 S.W.3d 798 (Tenn. 2009), the Tennessee Supreme Court reaffirmed

that the appearance of bias is as injurious as actual bias. The Court held that a judge must

disqualify himself or herself when their prior professional relationship with a party creates an

appearance of impropriety, regardless of whether actual bias exists. In the present case, Judge

Davis’s former partnership with the defendant raises legitimate concerns about impartiality

under this standard.

6. The Tennessee Court of Appeals has consistently held that reasonable questions regarding

impartiality require recusal to preserve public confidence in the judiciary.

(cs) Scanned with CamScanner

CamScanner

7. Even patterns of ruling* that seem consistently unfavorable, tone, attitude, or other

conduct can support a reasonable perception of bias.

8. Under Tennessee law and the Code of Judicial Conduct (Rule 10, Tenn. Sup. Ct R. 10), a

judge must recuse herself whenever her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless

of whether actual bias is proven. This includes situations where a judge has prior professional

ties or any relationship that creates an appearance of Impropriety.

9. Judge Kristi Davis served as a partner at Hodges, Doughty & Carson PLLC for approximately

14 years, a substantial and significant period during which she forged deep professional

relationships, financial interests, and lasting loyalties. Although she has not been formally

affiliated with the firm since 2014, such a lengthy and intimate association cannot simply be

dismissed or wiped away. The enduring influence and connections established over those years

remain relevant and potent.

10. This case involves Hodges, Doughty & Carson PLLC appearing as a defendant facing

claims for substantial damages. Furthermore, one of the defendant lawyers, affiliated with the

same firm, feces potential disciplinary action. These high stakes heighten the appearance of

bias and raise an undeniable conflict of interest for Judge Davis to preside over the case.

11. Her participation on the appellate panel directly threatens Plaintiff’s constitutional right to a

fair and impartial hearing. The very presence of Judge Davis in this case, given her

long-standing ties to a defendant with much to lose, creates an overwhelming perception of

partiality.

12. More troubling, however, Is Judge Davis's steadfast refusal to recuse herself despite these

glaring conflicts. This insistence only deepens the suspicion and raises serious questions about

her motivations for clinging to this case. If the perception of bias is as evident as it appears, then

the refusal to step aside only magnifies the appearance of impropriety and undermines public

confidence in the judiciary.

13. Plaintiff respectfully asserts that this refusal infringes upon the due process rights

guaranteed under the Constitution and demands immediate recusal to preserve the integrity of

these proceedings.

14. Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) establishes that a judge must

recuse not only when they are actually biased, but when their impartiality might reasonably be

questioned.

'The integrity of the judicial system is dependent upon the public's confidence in its judges.

Therefore, to protect the public's trust, courts must avoid both actual bias and the appearance of

bias or impropriety.'

cs CamScanner

|cs] Scanned with CamScanner

CS CamScanner

In Kinard, the court reversed a trial judge's decision after determining that the circumstances

could lead a reasonable person to question the judge's impartiality, even though there was no

proof of actual bias.

15. Davis v. Liberty Mutual, 38 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2001) affirms that an objective appearance of

bias, even without personal bias, can warrant recusal.

16. Plaintiff contends that Judge Davis's former partnership with the Defendant Hodges,

Doughty & Carson, PLLC, creates a legitimate and reasonable basis for questioning her

impartiality in this matter. This is not mere speculation, it is a direct and disqualifying fact that

gives rise to the appearance of bias, which is independently sufficient for disqualification under

Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10, Canon 2.11(AX1).

17. The Court's suggestion that Plaintiff must prove actual bias or an ongoing relationship with

the Defendant in order to obtain recusal is legally incorrect and fundamentally disregards the

constitutional and ethical protections at issue. The disqualification standard does not require

proof of subjective bias; it requires only that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be

questioned.

18. To dismiss this concern as speculative is to ignore the critical facts raised by Plaintiff and to

undermine Plaintiff’s fundamental right to a fair and impartial tribunal, as guaranteed by the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judiciary’s

integrity demands that even the appearance of impropriety be taken seriously, especially when a

judge has previously maintained a professional and financial partnership with a party currently

before the court Accordingly, recusal is not only appropriate, it is mandatory.

19. Given the serious appearance of bias and the dear conflict arising from Judge Davis's

former partnership with the Defendant law firm, it is fundamentally improper for Judge Davis to

decide this Motion to Recuse. The impartiality of the tribunal is called into question, and allowing

the judge to rule on her own recusal would undermine public confidence in the integrity and

neutrality of the judiciary.

20. Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that this Court assign the dedsion on this Motion to

Recuse to another, impartial judge, that Judge Davis recuse herself immediately from ruling on

this matter, and that all further rulings or proceedings in this case be stayed until this recusal

issue is resolved.

Good Faith Certification

This motion is filed in good faith and not for purposes of harassment or delay.

CamScanner

cs] Scanned with CamScanner

CamScanner

nVyW 1W WMwT

Wherefore. Pfomtff respectfuffy requests that

1. The Court order Judge Kneti Davis to recuse herself from this case;

2. Any further proceedings ho assigned to a dMOrsnt judge.

3. The Court slay any further ruhngs or proceedmgs pending reeoMion of this Motion to

Recuse: and

4. Such oOtor relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Reapoctfuffy submMad.

Btobete GeorgewM

PtMWfl

423-561-5460

BiMeoroewiilfflamail com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

l hereby certify that on this 24th day of ASy. 2025. a true and correct copy of the foregoing

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE KRISTI DAVIS as served via email on.

Counsel for Defendant,

Jason Long. Esq.

Emal: JLongQtewisthomason.com and SYearyQtewtsthomason.com

Biobete GeorgewM

Plaintiff

423 Ml 5400

cs CamScanner

cs Scanned with CamScanner

CS CamScanner

(worn Affidavit of lloMo GeorgewW

I. Btobale Georges*. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Stale ofTonneeeee

that the foregoing atatementa are true and correct to the beat ot my knowledge and belief

I further certify foal thia motion la mode m good faith and not for the purpose of harassment or

undue delay.

Executed thia

.day of

. 20»

PiaintMf

Notary Acknowledgment

State of Tomeeaee

County of V^*V.

SuMcnbed and sworn to before me on the

day

----- •2025 ®°e*e

George**

Notary Pubhc Sgnoture

My oommisaion expires:

CS CamScanner

csl Scanned with CamScanner

CS CamScanner

Judge Kristi Davis Joins the Court of

Appeals

August 3,2020

Judge Kristi Davis was sworn in today

as Tennessee's newest member of the

Court of Appeals. She was appointed

to the Court by Governor Bill Lee just

over 60 days ago.

Judge Davis, who has been a circuit

court Judge in the Sixth Judicial District

in Knoxville since 2014, Is the second

female judge to serve on the Court of

Appeals from the Eastern Division and

the sixth woman to serve on the Court

of Appeals. She fills the vacancy left by

the retirement of the Honorable

Charles D. Susano Jr. in April 2020.

Prior to her judicial career, she was a

partner at the firm of Hodges, Doughty

& Carson In Knoxville, where she

practiced for 14 years. She is a

graduate of the University of

Tennessee College of Law.

"We are excited to have Judge Davis

join the Court of Appeals," Chief Judge

D. Michael Swiney said. "We are

fortunate that her experience will

enable her to hit the ground running,

which is an important benefit to the

people of Tennessee and the Court of

Appeals. We look forward to August 3

finally getting here.”

An unconventional path to the

annallata cnurt

CamScanner

cs] Scanned with CamScanner

CS CamScanner

•>?!

RECEIVED

JUN 1 2 2025

^Zozs-OO^II-CmH- UNK-cv

Clerk of the Appellate Cottrfa THE COURT OF APPEALS CHF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

REc'd By

-------Biobele Georgewill,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Joshua M. Ball Esq., and Hodges Doughty and Carson PLLC

Defendant-Appellee,

filed

JUN I 2 2025

Clerk of the. Appellate Court*

REc'd By

ft? "<^“25“

Case NO 25C293

bate: June 6,2025

MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE KRISTI M. DAVIS

COMES NOW the Plaintiff/Appellant, Biobele Georgewill. and respectfully moves this Honorable

Court to recuse the Honorable Judge Kristi M. Davis from presiding over the above-captioned

matter, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10, Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon

2.11(A). on the foltowing grounds:

1 . Judge Kristi M. Davis was previously employed as a partner at the law firm of Hodges,

Doughty & Carson, PLLC, a law firm which is currently involved in this case as legal counsel for

the Defendant/Appellee CMH Homes Inc., dba Clayton Homes, or otherwise maintains an

interest in the outcome of the litigation.

2. Judge Davis's prior association with the firm raises a legitimate concern regarding impartiality,

of at minimum, creates the appearance of a conflict of interest that undermines public

confidence in the integrity and neutrality of the judiciary.

3. Canon 2.11 (A)(6)(a) of the Tennessee Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge shall

disqualify herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be

questioned, including when the judge previously practiced, law with a firm currently representing

a party before the court

4. Given Judge Davis's longstanding history with Hodges, Doughty & Carson, and the firm's

known involvement in this matter, her continued participation could give rise to an appearance

of bias and diminish confidence in the fairness of these proceedings.

cs CamScanner

CamScanncr

7/J

CERTIFIED MAIL

RECEIVED

)UL ’it

Clerk of The

aK=>

Biobele Georgewill

plaintiff/Appeliant,

CMH Homes mo., dba Clayton Homes.

OefendanVAppellee.

FILED

JUL 0 7 2025

Clerk of the Appellate Cou

REc'd Bv

Case Number E202SXJ0865-COA-T10B

And

Biobele Georgewill.

Plaintiff/Appellant,

LnuaM. Ba. Esq., and Hodges Doughty and Carson PUC.

Defendant/Appelfe®-

Case Number : E2025- 00911-COA-UNK-CV

Date: July 2,2025

Court as follows:

j INTRODUCTION

shat her

present in this case.

CamScanner

FILED

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

07/18/2025

Cleric of the