Daker v. Ward

1

WASEEM DAKER, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner TIMOTHY WARD, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 5:22-cv-340 (MTT)

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division

April 3, 2023

ORDER

MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends dismissing plaintiff Waseem Daker's complaint (Doc. 1) “for his bad faith failure to comply with the permanent injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.” Doc. 6. The Magistrate Judge further ordered Daker to show cause why the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia should not impose and enforce similar filing restrictions against him, and informed Daker of his right to file objections to the dismissal of his complaint. Id. at 9-12. The Court granted in part Daker's request for an extension of time to respond, and gave him until March 2, 2023 to file his response and objections. Docs. 7; 8; 9. Having received no objection, the Court entered an Order adopting the Recommendation on March 13 2023. Doc. 10. On March 15, 2023, the Court received Daker's response and objection. Docs. 12; 14. The Court assumes Daker timely filed his response and objection,^[1]and thus the Court VACATES its prior Order (Doc. 10) and Judgment (Doc. 11).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court now reviews the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 6) de novo.

A Daker's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation of Dismissal

When Daker filed this action, he was required by court order to include (1) a copy of the Northern District's injunction order, and (2) “a list of each and every lawsuit, habeas corpus petition, and appeal that he has filed in any federal court along with the final disposition of each lawsuit, petition or appeal.” Daker v. Deal, No. 1:18-cv-5243-WMR, Doc. 57 at 19 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 4, 2020) aff'd sub nom. Daker v. Governor of Ga., 2022 WL 1102015 (11th Cir. 2022) (hereinafter, “Northern District Injunction”). The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Daker's complaint because Daker failed to comply with either requirement. Doc. 6 at 1-9. Daker makes various arguments in opposition to dismissal. Doc. 14.

First, Daker asserts that “[t]he magistrate erred in recommending dismissal or presuming that Mr. Daker acted in bad faith without first issuing a show-cause order or otherwise allowing him an opportunity to be heard or explain why he failed to comply with the Northern District of Georgia's Injunction.” Id. at 2. Because the Court afforded him an opportunity to be heard through his objection, the Court rejects Daker's first argument.

Next, Daker argues dismissal is not warranted because his first amended complaint complies with the Northern District Injunction. Docs. 13 at 54-62; 14 at 2-3. However, Daker's amended complaint is not timely under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 13. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), as amended in 2009, allows a plaintiff to amend his complaint in four circumstances: (1) as a matter of course within twenty-one days after service; (2) as a matter of course within twenty-one days after the service of a responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion; (3) with the opposing party's written consent; or (4) with the court's leave. Daker's amended complaint was filed without the defendants' consent, without leave from the Court, and more than five months after he filed the operative complaint. Doc. 13. Moreover, Daker's failure to comply with the Northern District Injunction has resulted in a dismissal before service on the defendants. Because the time for Daker to serve the operative complaint had not yet been reached, the window for filing an amended complaint as a matter of course had not yet opened.^[2]

Finally, Daker argues his failure to comply with the Northern District Injunction is due to misconduct by the defendants. Doc. 14 at 3-20. He alleges defendants have denied “him access to his stored legal materials,” have destroyed “his only copy of” the Northern District Injunction, and have denied “him access to photocopying with which to copy” the Northern District Injunction order.^[3]Id. But Daker did not even attempt to comply with the Northern District Injunction. He did not mention the injunction in the operative complaint, nor did he list “each and every” case he has filed in every federal court. Docs. 1 at 3 (listing only fifteen of his cases); 1-1. The Supreme Court has stated that it is “established doctrine that persons subject to an injunctive order ... are expected to obey that decree until it is modified or reversed, even if they have proper grounds to object to the order.” GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc., 445 U.S. 375, 386 (1980); see also Smith Barney, Inc. v. Hyland, 969 F.Supp. 719, 722 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 1997) (“Where an injunction is ordered, the parties are bound to obey it and are under an obligation to take steps to insure that violations of the order, even inadvertent, do not occur.”). Thus, the Court concludes that, because “there was not even an attempt [by Daker] at compliance with [the injunction's] requirements,” dismissal is warranted. Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (11th Cir. 1993); see also Doc. 6 at 8 (“Plaintiff's willful misconduct in this case, coupled with his extensive history of abusing the judicial process, demonstrates that dismissal of this action is both appropriate and necessary to deter further misconduct.”).

After review, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED and made the order of the Court. Accordingly, Daker's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.

B. Permanent Injunction

After a careful review of Daker's response (Doc. 12) to the January 31, 2023 Order directing him to respond and show cause why sanctions should not be entered against him in the Middle District (Doc. 6 at 9-12), the Court concludes that sanctions are appropriate to curtail Daker's abuse of the Middle District's resources. The Court thus PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Daker as described below.

1. Background and Procedural History

Daker is a notorious “extraordinarily prolific serial litigant” who has “clogged the federal courts with frivolous litigation.” Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Despite this, Daker has until relatively recently “come out looking somewhat like Mr. Magoo, wreaking havoc wherever he goes but ... coming out largely unscathed.” Daker v. Toole, 736 Fed.Appx. 234, 235 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). On August 4, 2020, the Northern District of Georgia entered a permanent injunction requiring Daker to submit a $1,500.00 contempt bond before filing or attempting to file any new lawsuit or petition in that court. Daker v. Deal, No. 1:18-cv-5243-WMR, Doc. 57 at 17-18. The court warned Daker that if a presiding judge finds any of Daker's future filings to be frivolous or duplicative, the judge may impose a sanction against Daker to be paid from that contempt bond. Id. at 18. The court also directed Daker to include a copy of the injunction and a list of his complete federal court litigation history “with every lawsuit he files in this or any other federal court.” Id. at 19 (emphasis in original). The court further advised Daker that any future action would be summarily dismissed if Daker submits it to the court without posting a contempt bond, without a copy of the injunction, or without a listing of his prior litigation history. Id. On April 13, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Northern District's imposition of the injunction. Governor of Ga., 2022 WL 1102015, at *2.

The Southern District of Georgia recently followed suit, permanently enjoining Daker in the same manner after providing Daker notice and an opportunity to be heard. Daker v. Ward, No. 6:22-cv-36-JRH-BKE, Doc. 24, 2023 WL 418695, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 26, 2023).

On January 31, 2023, the Court determined it may be time to join the Northern and Southern Districts. To that end, the Magistrate Judge ordered Daker to respond and show cause why the Middle District should not enter the same filing restrictions entered by the Northern District. Doc. 6 at 9-12. The Court received Daker's 44-page response on March 15, 2023 more than a week after it was due but the document was signed and dated on March 2, 2023, which, as previously mentioned, would make it timely under the prison mailbox rule. Docs. 12; 12-1.

2. Standard for Imposing Permanent Injunction

As the Magistrate Judge correctly observed, “[a]ccess to the courts is unquestionably a right of considerable constitutional significance,” but it is “neither absolute nor unconditional.” Miller v. Donald 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 936 F.2d 512, 516 (11th Cir. 1991)). “Conditions and restrictions on each person's access are necessary to preserve the judicial resource for all other persons. Frivolous and vexatious law suits threaten the availability of a well-functioning judiciary to all litigants.” Id. “Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions.” Klayman v. DeLuca, 712 Fed.Appx. 930, 932-33 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (quoting Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073) (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (per curiam)). The All Writs Act codifies this inherent power and authorizes a district court “to restrict access to vexatious and abusive litigants.” Miller, 541 F.3d at 1096; 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Such restrictions, however, must be measured and tailored to the specific circumstance and should seek...