Daker v. Robinson et al
Filing
19
ORDER approving and adopting the 11 Final Report and Recommendation as its Order and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 1 Complaint pursuant to Local Rule 41.3A(2). The Court DENIES Daker's 17 Motion for Consideration of Motion for Reconsideration of IFP Status, as the motion for reconsideration referred to therein was previously denied. Daker is reminded that this Court's Local Rules prohibit the filing of motions for reconsideration as a matter of routine practice and prohibit altogether the filing of motions to reconsider the courts denial of a prior motion for reconsideration. Local Rule 7.2E, NDGa. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 9/12/2013. (cem)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
WASEEM DAKER (GDC 901373),
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN ROBINSON, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________
WASEEM DAKER (GDC 901373),
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN MARK DAWES,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS
42 U.S.C. § 1983
CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:12-CV-118-RWS
____________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS
42 U.S.C. § 1983
CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:12-CV-119-RWS
ORDER
Waseem Daker, the plaintiff in the two civil rights cases listed in the caption,
has been the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant in over fifty cases and appeals filed in
courts in the Eleventh Circuit. See www.pacer.gov (searched for “Daker, Waseem”;
last viewed September 11, 2013). In the cases listed in the caption, Daker was denied
permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and ordered to pay the applicable
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
filing fees. See [-118 Doc. 3; -119 Doc. 3]. When Daker failed to do so within the
prescribed time, a magistrate judge of this Court entered a Final Report and
Recommendation (“Final R&R”), recommending dismissal pursuant to Local Rule
41.3A(2). See [-118 Doc. 11; -119 Doc. 11].
This case is now before the Court on that Final R&R, Daker’s Objections
thereto [-118 Doc. 16; -119 Doc. 16], Daker’s Motion for Consideration of Motions
for Reconsideration of IFP Status [-118 Doc. 17; -119 Doc. 17], and Daker’s
Supplemental Objections [-118 Doc. 18; -119 Doc. 18], and the Court has reviewed
the Final R&R de novo in light of Daker’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
First, Daker asserts in his Objections that “the R&R does not address or
consider that Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of [IFP] status.” [-118 Doc.
16 at 2; -119 Doc. 16 at 2]. Although the Final R&R did not address Daker’s motion
for reconsideration, that motion was addressed at length and denied in an Order that
Daker fails to acknowledge. See [-118 Doc. 10 at 6-8; -119 Doc. 10 at 6-8]. Because
Daker’s motion for reconsideration had already been separately addressed, it was not
required to be addressed again in the Final R&R. This objection is OVERRULED.
Second, Daker asserts in his Objections and Supplemental Objections that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has granted him IFP status in
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
recent cases. See [-118 Doc. 16 at 2; -118 Doc. 18 at 1; -119 Doc. 16 at 2; -119 Doc.
18 at 1]. In fact, in the five cases cited by Daker, the Eleventh Circuit expressly
denied him permission to proceed IFP. See In re Daker, No. 12-14369 (11th Cir. Aug.
24, 2012) (Order dated November 7, 2012 denying motion for permission to proceed
IFP); In re Daker, No. 12-12074 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2012) (Order dated May 24, 2012
denying motion to proceed IFP and Order dated July 9, 2012 denying motion for
reconsideration of denial of motion to proceed IFP); In re Daker, No. 12-12073 (11th
Cir. Apr. 19, 2012) (Order dated June 7, 2012 denying motion to proceed IFP and
Order dated October 11, 2012 denying motion for reconsideration of denial of motion
to proceed IFP); In re Daker, No. 12-12072 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2012) (Order dated
May 31, 2012 denying motion to proceed IFP and Order dated July 12, 2012 denying
motion for reconsideration of denial of motion to proceed IFP); In re Daker, No. 1111937 (11th Cir. Apr. 29, 2011) (Order dated June 3, 2011 denying motion to proceed
IFP and Order dated July 20, 2011 denying motion for reconsideration of denial of
motion to proceed IFP).
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed two of those cases in response to Daker’s later
motions for voluntary withdrawal; the other three cases, however, were dismissed by
3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
the Eleventh Circuit for want of prosecution because Daker failed to pay the required
docketing fees. See In re Daker, No. 12-14369 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2012) (Order dated
December 11, 2012 dismissing case for want of prosecution for failure to pay
docketing fee); In re Daker, No. 12-12073 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2012) (Order dated July
12, 2012 dismissing case for want of prosecution for failure to pay docketing fee); In
re Daker, No. 12-12072 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2012) (Order dated August 6, 2012
dismissing case for want of prosecution for failure to pay docketing fee). This
objection is also OVERRULED.
As supplemented by the discussion above, the Court hereby APPROVES and
ADOPTS the Final R&R as its Order and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Daker’s complaints [-118 Doc. 1; -119 Doc. 1] in the cases listed in the caption. The
Court DENIES Daker’s Motion for Consideration of Motion for Reconsideration of
IFP Status [-118 Doc. 17; -119 Doc. 17], as the motion for reconsideration referred
to therein was previously denied, see [-118 Doc. 10; -119 Doc. 10].
Daker is reminded that this Court’s Local Rules prohibit the filing of motions
for reconsideration as a matter of routine practice and prohibit altogether the filing of
“motions to reconsider the court’s denial of a prior motion for reconsideration.” LR
7.2E, NDGa.
4
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
SO ORDERED, this 12th day of September, 2013.
_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
