Waseem Daker v. Commissioner Homer Bryson, et al., No. 19-11212 (11th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 19-11212 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-11212 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-00088-TES-CHW WASEEM DAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER HOMER BRYSON, TIMOTHY WARD, Assistant Commissioner, RICK JACOBS, Facilities Director, STEVE UPTON, Deputy Facilities Director, ROBERT E. JONES, General Counsel, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia ________________________ (May 25, 2021) USCA11 Case: 19-11212 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 2 of 4 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LAGOA and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Waseem Daker, a state prisoner, appeals pro se the sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of his amended complaint against prison officials. On the recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court dismissed Daker’s complaint as malicious because it was duplicative of earlier pleadings, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and in the alternative, as a shotgun pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Daker challenges the dismissal of his amended complaint. We affirm. Daker argues that the district court erred by dismissing his amended complaint as malicious and duplicative, but we need not address that issue because we can affirm on the alternative ground that his complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). Daker’s amended complaint consisted of a “statement of facts” that he incorporated by reference into his claims that “the defendants” violated his right to practice his religion under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, interfered with his right to obtain personal and legal materials and to access the courts under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, maltreated him in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and interfered with his right to due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The magistrate judge classified Daker’s complaint as a shotgun pleading because it 2 USCA11 Case: 19-11212 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 3 of 4 was impossible to identify which of the more than two dozen prison officials named as defendants were allegedly responsible for which act and what facts pertained to each claim for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015) (describing a shotgun pleading). Daker did not object to the classification and instead argued that he lacked resources to identify and correct the deficiencies in his pleading. As the district court highlighted in its order adopting the magistrate judge’s report, Daker “waive[d] the right to challenge on appeal” the dismissal of his amended complaint as a shotgun pleading. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. Daker argues that he should have been allowed to amend his complaint again or to “revert back” to his original complaint, but the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying those requests. Daker’s amended complaint “superseded” his original complaint, which meant that his “original pleadings were abandoned by the amendment” and became “a legal nullity.” See Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016). We find no error in disallowing further amendments, even though the dismissal of Daker’s amended complaint operated as a dismissal with prejudice. See Justice v. United States, 6 F.3d 1474, 1482 & n.15 (11th Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal with prejudice, whether on motion or sua sponte, is an extreme sanction that may be properly imposed . . . when . . . a party engages in a clear pattern of delay or willful contempt (contumacious 3 USCA11 Case: 19-11212 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 4 of 4 conduct) . . . .” Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337–38 (11th Cir. 2005). Daker does not dispute that his amended complaint was duplicative of multiple lawsuits containing the same claims against the same defendants. See Daker v. Bryson, 841 F. App’x 115, 117–21 (11th Cir. 2020) (recounting Daker’s prior actions). And Daker waived any challenge to the magistrate judge’s finding that his continued litigiousness evidenced his bad faith. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Daker’s complaint. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
