Daker v. Dawes et al, No. 1:2012cv02782 - Document 19 (N.D. Ga. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER granting Daker's 12 Motion to Extend Time to Object to Magistrate's 10/29/2013 Report and Recommendation. Daker's Objection 13 is OVERRULED. After de novo review, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court APPROVES AND ADOP TS the Final Report and Recommendation 9 as the Order of the Court. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Daker failed to comply with a lawful Court order. See LR 41.3A(2), NDGa. Daker's Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story 11 and Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield III 15 are DENIED. Daker's Motion to Reconsider Court's 9/18/2013 Order Denying Plaintiff IFP Status 1 and Supplemental Motion to Reconsider 9/18/2013 Order Denyin g Plaintiff IFP Status 17 are DENIED. Once again, 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 reconsi der the court's denial of a prior motion for reconsideration." LR 7.2E, NDGa. If Daker nonetheless seeks reconsideration of this Order and/or files any new requests to proceed IFP in this Court, he is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in those motions or requests why this Court should not exercise its "discretion to deny or revoke th[e] privilege [to proceed IFP]..., either retrospectively or prospectively, by looking to 'the number, content, frequency, and disposition of his previous fi lings."" Hurt v. SSA, 544 F.3d 308,310 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Butler v. DOJ, 492 F.3d 440,445 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). In light of Daker's more than seventy prior cases and appeals, it may be appropriate for the Court to now exercise its "more general supervisory authority to manage [its] docket so as to promote[] the interests of justice,"" and to limit the waste of judicial resources by prisoners "'for whom litigation [is] a costless pastime.'" B utler, 492 F.3d at 444-45 (quoting In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989), and Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 208 F.3d 1032, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). See also In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 180 (1991) (denying IFP status to a frequent filer in an extraordinary writ case and noting that he might be similarly restricted from filing IFP in other cases if he abused the privilege). Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 6/5/2014. (cem)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE: WASEEM DAKER CIVIL ACTION NOS. 1:11­CV­1711­RWS 1:11­CV­3580­RWS 1:12­CV­118­RWS 1:12­CV­119­RWS 1:12­CV­1141­RWS 1 2­CV 1319­R S :1 ­ W 1 2­CV­2605­RWS :1 1: 12­CV­2782­RWS 1: 13­CV­1554­RWS 1: 13­CV 3053­RWS ­ ORDER The ten cases listed in the caption are before the Court on more than thirty motions and objections to Final Reports and Recommendations filed by state inmate, Waseem Daker. The Court has carefully reviewed and considered each ofDaker's filings and is now prepared to rule on each ofthem. Because these filings constitute only a small fraction ofthe more than one thousand submissions Daker has made in seventy-one civil cases and appeals in the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, the Southern District of Georgia, the Central District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United State Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, see Appendix A, the Court first summarizes Daker's criminal and litigation history. Dockets.Justia I. Waseem Daker's Criminal and Litigation Historyl A. Daker's Criminal Convictions In 1996, Daker was convicted by a Cobb County jury on two counts of aggravated stalking. See 11­CV 1711 [14­1] at 3. Daker served two consecutive ­ five­year terms and was released in 2005. Id. In 2010, Daker was indicted for malice murder, felony murder (four counts), burglary with intent to commit aggravated assault, burglary with intent to commit aggravated stalking, false imprisonment, aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, and criminal attempt to commit aggravated stalking. See 12­CV­1141 [1] at 3. Pending trial, Daker was held without bond. See 12­CV­2605 [1] at 2. After electing to terminate his court­appointed lawyers and represent himself at trial, Daker was convicted on all counts. Daker is now serving a life sentence. In Part I, the CMlECF numbers in brackets refer to docket entries in the case indicated by the preceding case number, abbreviated in the format "##­CV####." For example, "11­CV­1711 [14­1] at 3," refers to page number 3 of CMlECF document 14­1 inDakerv. Warren, No.1 :11­CV­1711­RWS (N.D. Ga. 2011). Unless explicitly noted, the case numbers refer to cases filed in the Northern District of Georgia. 1 2 B. Daker's Pro Se Litigation History Beginning in 1999­while he was serving sentences for aggravated stalking­Daker began filing numerous civil rights complaints and habeas corpus petitions in this Court and others. See Appendix A. After Daker was released from prison in 2005, there was a brief hiatus in his filings. See id. However, in 2010, when Daker was arrested and held on murder and related charges, he again began to file numerous civil rights and habeas actions. See id. As noted above, Daker has initiated or been involved in seventy-one civil cases and appeals in the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, the Southern District of Georgia, the Central District ofCalifornia, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit through June 4, 2014. See id. Despite the volume of his litigation, Daker has won virtually nothing. Insofar as appears from the dockets in each of his cases, Daker has been awarded just $2 in monetary damages. See 00­CV­1065 [90].2 Indeed, since then, the only additional relief of any sort that Daker appears to have ultimately been awarded in any case was 2 The costs awarded to Daker in that case­approximately $710, see OO-CV1065 [90]-have been dwarfed by the costs awarded against him in other cases, see, e.g., 03-CV-2481 [299] (awarding $1474 in costs to defendants); 03-CV-2526 [127] (awarding costs to defendants). 3 short-lived injunctive relief with respect to "weekly Ta'lim services." See 01-CV3257 [280] (reciting the history ofthat case in which all ofOaker's other claims had been dismissed or denied and injunctive relief had expired). In the cases that Oaker has filed since 2001, he appears to have won no ultimate relief. Rather, it appears that all of his claims have been: (1) dismissed voluntarily, see, e.g., 02-CV-1361 [41]; (2) dismissed involuntarily, see, e.g., 06-CV54 [23]; (3) denied on summary judgment, see, e.g., 03-CV-2526 [126]; or (4) in the one additional instance he reached a jury, rejected, see, e.g., 03-CV-2481 [293]. Oaker's appeals have been similarly fruitless, with those that have been fullyadjudicated generally having ended in dismissal either (1) because the circuit court deemed them frivolous, see, e.g., In re Daker, No. 11-11937 (11th Cir.); In reDaker, No. 12-12072 (l1th Cir.); In re Daker, No. 12-14369 (lith Cir.); Daker v. Warren, 13-11630 (lIth Cir.); or (2) for want of prosecution, see, e.g., In re Daker, No. 1212073 (lIth Cir.); Georgia v. Daker, No. 12-12519 (lith Cir.); Daker v. Comm'r, No. 13-13398 (lith Cir.) c. Daker and 28 U.S.C. § 1915('->: "Three Strikes" In light ofDaker's litigation history, the Eleventh Circuit "has determined that the 'three strikes' provision of the Prison Litigation Refonn Act of 1995[, codified 4 at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)], is applicable to" him. See, e.g., Letter dated May 29,2014, in Daker v. Comm 'r, No. 14-12139 (l1th Cir. 2014); Letter dated April 18, 2014, in Daker'v. Comm'r, No. 14-11571 (11th Cir. 2014) (same). This determination followed the entry of a Final Report and Recommendation in this Court recommending that Daker be determined to have accumulated "three strikes," see 13CV-3053 [5] at 1-2 (listing six strikes), and a finding by the Middle District of Georgia that Daker had accumulated three or more strikes, see Daker v. Owens, No. 5: 12-CV-459-CAR (M.D. Ga. Mar. 21,2014) [134]. Consequently, in any new case where Daker does not adequately allege that he is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury," 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), "the proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies ... leave to proceed in forma pauperis." Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11 th Cir. 2002). Daker "cannot simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status. He must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates suit." Id. (emphasis in original). D. Daker's "Indi2ence" Furthermore, it has become clear over time that Daker is not entitled in any event to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") because he is not indigent. Rather, it 5 appears that Daker has repeatedly abused the judicial process by filing IFP affidavits that conceal and/or misstate his true assets and income. Gwinnett County tax records indicate that Daker owns a home that has a market value ofover $398,000 and that, despite his incarceration, Daker has remained current on tax payments, including through a payment of$6,084.36 on September 14, 2013. See http://gwinnetttaxcommissioner .manatron.com/Tabsl ViewPayYourTaxeslAccountDetaillBilIDetail.aspx?p=R7056%20404& a=3323 7 684&b=21949900&y=20 13# (last viewed June 4,2014 ) (attached as Exhibit B). Despite Daker's recent unsubstantiated protestations that his house is now worth less than its $345,000 mortgage-a debt he self-reported, but has not documented-,3 Daker has plainly found it worthwhile to maintain his ownership ofthat home. And, despite his claim of indigence, Daker has plainly found the income or assets with which to make timely tax payments. Moreover, Daker has acknowledged that he has permitted family members to live in his house while he is incarcerated. See, e.g., 1O-CV-2084 [2] ("The following persons live in my house: my father, Anas Daker, my mother, Amal Daker, and my Daker did not claim that his home was worth less than he had paid for it in 2009 until this Court denied one of his requests for IFP status in light of the $50,000 in home equity that he had disclosed. See, e.g., 12-CV-2782 [7] at 2. 3 6 brother, Jameh Daker.") Whether those family members are paying rent or other consideration or whether their residence in the house simply precludes Daker from generating income from paying renters, there is plainly a substantial income stream associated with the house that Daker is either not disclosing or voluntarily electing to forego in order to claim indigence. Furthennore, other substantial assets that Daker has disclosed in past IFP affidavits, including, for example, "a car that is paid off in full," ll-CV-1401 [2] at 2, have vanished without explanation from Daker' s subsequent disclosures ofassets, even as he continues to claim that he has "had no income" since January 10, 2010, Daker v. Motokwa, No. 14-55653 (9th Cir. 2014) [IFP Affidavit filed on May 19, 2014, Item 11]. And Daker has stated that he granted a power of attorney to a relative to handle his financial affairs outside of prison so that "said infonnation" would not be subject to "monitoring" by prison officials, 12-CV-119 [3], without ever disclosing the nature of and value of the assets that he is permitting others to manage on his behalf. As noted above, this infonnation, which has been revealed only in bits and pieces over time, unmistakably indicates that Daker has abused the judicial process 7 by filing IFP affidavits that conceal and/or misstate his real assets and income. Consequently, Daker is not eligible to proceed IFP. E. Daker's Motions for Reconsideration Daker has also abused the judicial process through the repeated filing of motions for reconsideration. Despite having been advised often that this Court's Local Rules provide that "[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter ofroutine practice," LR 7.2E, NDGa., Daker nonetheless has done so and continues to do so in many cases. See Appendix A. In support of his post-judgment motions, Daker will frequently file multiple "supplemental" pleadings. See, e.g., ll-CV-1711 [38,39,42,43,44]. These post-judgment motions have served only to unnecessarily prolong litigation in this Court, and many appear to have been filed, in whole or in part, to extend Daker's time to prepare and file appeals. F. Daker's Motions to Recuse All ofDaker's cases in this Court have been assigned to the undersigned, save for one transferred to the Honorable Amy T otenberg when she was first appointed to serve in the Northern District. See Appendix A. For more than a decade, from 1999 through 2011, Daker raised no objection to these case assignments. In 2011, however, Daker began to file what have since become routine motions to recuse. See 8 10-CV-3815 [20]. Indeed, Daker now frequently files multiple motions to recuse in the same case. See, e.g., id. [20, 27, 43, 68]. Although in each subsequent motion to recuse, Daker sometimes adds additional, unsubstantiated accusations, his core "bias" and "conspiracy" claims remain the same. Both this Court and the Eleventh Circuit have thoroughly considered Daker's motions and concluded that recusal is not warranted, as "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for bias." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (l994). Nor is recusal required where "the judge acquired knowledge of relevant facts through prior judicial proceedings." Order dated Oct. 9,2012, in Georgia v. Daker, No. 12-12519 (lIth Cir. Oct. 9,2012) (citing Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324, 1334 (lIth Cir. 2000) (considering Daker's arguments under both 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455). And, "[a] charge of partiality must be supported by some factual basis . . .. Recusal cannot be based on unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation." United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (lIth Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Daker's motions to recuse do not meet those standards. 4 Further discussion of the reasons the Court has declined to recuse can be found in the Orders addressing Daker's motions to recuse, including 12-CV-572 [4, 7], 12-CV-119 [10], and 12-CV-118 [10]. That discussion is not repeated here. 4 9 II. Pendin2 Motions and Objections5 With that background in mind, the Court now turns to the ten cases listed in the caption and Daker's many pending filings in them. 1. No. 1:11-CV-1711 Daker has filed a "Motion for Service of Order Denying Certificate of Appealability and Denying In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal; Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal" [54]. That motion is DENIED. The docket reflects that the February 28,2014 Order that Daker claims never to have received was mailed to him at the address he had provided to this Court and that it was not returned as undeliverable. See [Unnmbrd Dkt. Entry dated Feb. 28, 2014]. Daker's motion indicates that he learned no later than March 4, 2014, that the February 28 Order had been entered. [54] at 1. This was well within the 30-day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(I)(A). No extensionofthe appeal period was warranted. See id. (a)( 5). Indeed, Daker later filed a notice ofappeal in this case that he dated March 30, 2014. [55]. In Part II, the CMlECF numbers in brackets refer to docket entries in the case identified in the numbered paragraph. 5 10 2. No.l:11-CV-3580 Daker's "Motion for Service ofOrder Denying Certificate ofAppealability and Denying In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal; Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal" [50] is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the discussion above with respect to the identical motion in 11-CV-1711. 3. No. 1:12-CV-118 Daker's "Motion to Reconsider Court's 1116/14 Order" [32] and "Supplemental Motion to Reconsider Court's 1/16/14 Order" [42] are DENIED. First, the Court's January 16 Order denied Daker's previous Rule 59(e) Motions to Vacate, and this Court's Local Rules prohibit motions to reconsider motions to reconsider. See LR 7.2E, NDGa. Second, the footnote in the January 16 Order that Daker demands be reconsidered and vacated deals with Daker' s "strikes" in prior cases and appeals. As discussed above, the Eleventh Circuit, this Court, and the Middle District ofGeorgia have all concluded that Daker has accumulated more than three "strikes." Third, there are only two grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 59(e): '''newly discovered evidence or manifest errors oflaw or fact.'" Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (l1th Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (lIth Cir. 1999)). Here, Daker has neither presented 11 any new evidence, nor identified any manifest error. Rather, Daker is simply seeking to "relitigate old matters, raise argument, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment," none of which is a basis for relief in a Rule 59(e) motion. Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village o/Wellington, Fla. 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11 th Cir. 2005). Daker's "Request for Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" on appeal [38] and "Request for Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" on appeal [40] are DENIED because he is ineligible to proceed IFP in new appeals now that he has accumulated more than three strikes, unless he can show that he is "under imminent danger of serious physical harm," which he has not attempted to do in this case, and because, as discussed above, it does not appear that Daker is actually indigent. 4. No.l:12-CV-119 Daker's "Motion to Reconsider Court's 1116/14 Order" [32], "Request for Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" on appeal [37], and "Request for Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" on appeal [38], and "Supplemental Motion to Reconsider Court's 1/16/2014 Order" [40] are DENIED for the reasons set forth above in the discussion of the identical motions filed in 12-CV-118. 12 5. No. 1:12-CV-1141 Daker's "Motion for Service ofOrder Denying Certificate ofAppealability and Denying In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal; Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal" [39] is DENIED for the reasons set forth above in the discussion of the identical motion filed in ll-CV-1711. 6. No.l:12-CV-1319 Daker's "Motion for Service ofOrder Denying Certificate ofAppealability and Denying In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal; Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal" [34] is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the discussion above with respect to ll-CV-1711. 7. No. 1:12-CV-2605 Daker's "Motion for Service ofOrder Denying Certificate ofAppealabilty and Denying In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal; Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal" [34] is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the discussion above with respect to ll-CV-1 711. 8. No.l:12-CV-2782 Daker's "Motion to Extend Time to Object to Magistrate's October 29,2013 Report and Recommendation" [12] is GRANTED. 13 Daker's "Objection" [13] is OVERRULED. After de novo review, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Final Report and Recommendation [9] as the Order of the Court. Daker's "Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story" [11] and "Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield III" [15] are DENIED. As discussed above, Daker has repeatedly sought recusal ofthe undersigned and Magistrate Judge Scofield. This Court and the Eleventh Circuit have thoroughly considered those motions and denied them for the reasons set forth above. Daker's latest motions add nothing that would alter the conclusion that recusal is not warranted. Daker's "Motion to Reconsider Court's 9118/2013 Order Denying PlaintiffIFP Status" [16] and "Supplemental Motion to Reconsider 9118/13 Order Denying PlaintiffIFP Status" [17] are DENIED. As discussed above, it is c1earthat Daker has repeatedly misrepresented his financial status and that he is not indigent. 9. No.l:13-CV-1554 Daker's "Motion to Reconsider and Vacate Order Denying Motions 3,4,5,6" [9] is DENIED. 14 Daker's "Motion to Extend Time to Pay Filing Fee" [10] is GRANTED. The Court notes, however, that the filing fee was not forthcoming from Daker by the date he proposed to pay it. No further extensions of time are warranted. Daker's "Second Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story" [11] and "Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield III" [13] are DENIED. Daker's "Motion to Reconsider Magistrate's 10/31113 Order Denying In Forma Pauperis Status" [14] and "Supplemental Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. Daker's "Objection to Magistrate's 10/31/13 Report & Recommendation" [12] and "Supplemental Obj ection to Magistrate's 10/31/13 Report and Recommendation" [15] are OVERRULED. After de novo review, see 28 U. S.C. § 636(b)( 1), the Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Final Report and Recommendation [7] as the Order of the Court. 10. No.1:13-CV-3053 Daker's "Motion to Extend Time to Object to Magistrate's 12/30/13 Report and Recommendation" [7] is GRANTED. Daker's "Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story" [8], "Second Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story" [9], and "Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Scofield [sic] E. Clayton Scofield, III" [10] are DENIED. 15 Daker's "Objection to Magistrate's 12/30/13 Report & Recommendation" [11] and "Supplemental Objection to Magistrate's December 30, 2013 Report and Recommendation" [12] are OVERRULED. Indeed, it appears that the Final R&R undercounts the total number of "strikes" that Daker has accumulated in light of Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (llth Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). In that case, the Eleventh Circuit instructed district courts that (l) "[a] claim that fails to allege the requisite exhaustion of remedies is tantamount to one that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" and counts as a strike, and (2) "dismissal based on a petitioner's abuse ofthe judicial process is precisely the type of strike that Congress envisioned/' including dismissals for want of prosecution. fd. Moreover, "[p]laintiffs are bound by the judgments in their prior cases, and may not dispute their merits in order to challenge a 'three-strikes' determination." Casey v. Scott, 493 F. App'x 1000, 1001 (l1th Cir. 2012). It is abundantly clear that Daker has accumulated three or more "strikes." After de novo review, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Final Report and Recommendation [5] as the Order of the Court. 16 III. Further Proceedin2s. Once again, Daker is reminded that this Court's Local Rules prohibit the filing of motions for reconsideration as a matter ofroutine practice and prohibit altogether the filing of "motions to reconsider the court's denial of a prior motion for reconsideration." LR 7.2E, NDGa. If Daker nonetheless seeks reconsideration of this Order and/or files any new requests to proceed IFP in this Court, he is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in those motions or requests why this Court should not exercise its "discretion to deny or revoke th[e] privilege [to proceed IFP] ... , either retrospectively or prospectively, by looking to 'the number, content, frequency, and disposition of his previous filings.'" Hurt v. SSA, 544 F.3d 308,310 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Butler v. DOJ, 492 F.3d 440,445 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). In light of Daker's more than seventy prior cases and appeals, it may be appropriate for the Court to now exercise its "more general supervisory authority to manage [its] docket so as to promote[] the interests ofjustice,'" and to limit the waste of judicial resources by prisoners "'for whom litigation [is] a costless pastime.'" Butler, 492 F.3d at 444-45 (quoting In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989), and Ibrahim v. District ofColumbia, 208 F.3d 1032, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). See also In 17 re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 180 (1991) (denying IFP status to a frequent filer in an extraordinary writ case and noting that he might be similarly restricted from filing IFP in other cases if he abused the privilege). SO ORDERED, this.5!:.. day of June, 2014. United States District Ju ge 18 APPENDIX A Filing Fee Paid Docket Number Caption Rule Total 59/611Dod<et type Entries Cause of Action Principal Final Outcome 1983 - civil rights 1983 - civil rights 1983 - civil rights 2241- habeas 1983 - cllIlI rights dismissed; Daker assessed costs summary judgment for defendants summary judgment for defendant dismissed for failure to state a claim Daker won $21n damages plus $750.10 In costs most claims dismissed; temporary injunctive relief 1983 - civil rights 1983 - civil rights granted on one RLUIPA claim dismissed (voluntarily) 1983 - dvil rights 1983 - civil rights jury verdict for defendants; Daker assessed $1,474.16 in costs summary judgment & costs for defendants cert Result on Appeal denlel Cases Opened in the Northern District of Georgia (through June 3, 2014) 1:99-CV-894-RWS 1:99-CV-222B-RWS 1:99-CV-22G2-RWS partial 4 Dakerll. Ray 5 Daker v. Barrett 1 Dakar v. Garner 2 Daker v. Ray :3 Daker II. Williams 1:00-CV-277-RWS 1:00-CV-1065-RWS full appeal fee I 1:01-CV-3257-RWS Daker v. Wetherington 7 Dakerv. Ray partial 1:02-CV-1361-RWS 44 Yes denied -See denied See denied - See denied - See 60 Yes 44 119 Yes 297 Yes -"2 Dakerv. Ra:i, No. 04-11787 Dakar v. Whiting. No. 01-14247 Daker v. Ray, No. 01-14246 Daker v. Barre!t No. 03-155771 denied - See Daker v. Donald, No. 04-12447 8 Daker v. Ferrero Daker v. Ferrero 1:03-CV-2481-RWS 1:03-CV-252G-RWS 10 Daker v. Sarrett Daker v. Barrett Daker v. Barrett 1:04-CV-662-RWS 1:04-CV-1149-RWS 1:04-CV-3129-RWS 1:0S-CV-1389-RWS 1:05-CV-2751-RWS 1:05-ml-397 1:05-ml-398 1:0G-CV-54-RWS 1:06-CV-S5-RWS 1: 1I1-CV-552-RWS 1:1O-CV-1585-RWS 1:10-CV-2084-AT - c-1j 13 Daker v. GDOC f-14 Daker v. Benton 15 Daker v. Donald 16 Daker v. Barrett 17 Daker II, Donald 18 Daker v. Barrett 19 Daker v. Warren 20 Daker II. United States 21 Daker II. Warren 22 Daker v. Warren 23 Daker II. Warren 24 Daker II. Warren full full full full fee paid fee paid fee paid fee paid i 2241- habeas 1983 - civil rights 2254 - habeas 1983 - civil rights 1983 - civil rights 1983 - civil rights 1983 - civil rights 2241 - habeas 2241 - habeas 1983 - dvll rights denied - See Daker v. Ferrero No. 07-15658 stayed dismissed (voluntarily) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction transferred to M,D. Ga. administratively closed converted to 1:06-CV-S4-RWS converted to 1:0G-CV-5S-RWS dismissed (failure to comply I failure to serve) dismissed (voluntarily) dismissed without prejudice dismissed (voluntarily) summary Judgment for defendants 34 Yes denied - See Daker v. Barrett, No. 05-152.68 ---- denied - See Daker v. Barrett, No. 07-10909 6 2 2 24 35 29 7 184 Yes full fee paid full fee paid 2241 - habeas 2241- habeas 2241- habeas dismissed In part; denied In part consolidated with 1:1I1-CV-3815-RWS administratively closed full fee paid full fee paid 2241- habeas 2241- habeas dismissed (voluntarily) dismissed without prejudice full fee paid 2241 - habeas dismissed without prejudice 53 Yes on appeal 1983 - civil rights 42 Yes 40 Yes 18 43 Yes 7 37 Yes 37 Yes on appeal 1983 - civil rights 1443 - removal dismissed without prejudice dismissed without prejudice denied dismissed without prejudice consolidated with 1:1I1-CV-1141-RWS dismissed without prejudice dismissed without prejudice full fee paid 1:12-CV-2782.-RWS 1:13-CV-1554-RWS - 2241 - habeas 2241 - habeas 2241 - habeas 2241 - habeas 1983 civil rights 1983 - civil rights _ . _ . - 1983 - civil rights --- 79 Yes 7 Yes 4 on appeal . denied - See Daker v. Warren, Nos. 12-12820 & 1213644 Yes ----- 1:12-CV-119-RWS l:12-CV-Sn-RWS 1:12-CV-1141-RWS 1:12-CV-1291-RWS 1:12-CV-1319-RWS 1:12-CV-2G05-RWS 35 Daker v. Dawes 36 Daker v. Humphrey denied - See Daker v. Warren No. 10-15028 1:12-CV-118-RWS Daker v. Warren -- 5 Yes 1:11-CV-3580-RWS 29 Daker v. Dawes Georgia v. Daker Daker v. Warren Daker v. Warren Daker v. Unnamed Defene 37 i Daker full appeal fee paid 1:11-CV-171O-RWS 1:11-CV-1711-RWS 27 Daker v. Warren 28 Daker v. Robinson 2254 - habeas 1983 - dvll rights 322 Yes 127 1:10-CV-3815-RWS 1:11-CV-764-RWS 1:11-CV-1401-RWS 25 Daker v. United States 26 Daker v. Warren 30 31 32 33 34 full appeal fee paid full fee paid pending pending - - - 11 lJ>l!rlding_ - -.. on appeal denied· See Georgia v. Daker, No. 12-12519 on appeal on appeal on appeal 18 Yes 17 Yes 13 on appeal f-- f-- APPENDIX A --- Rule 59/60- Total CaptIon Docket Number Filing Fee PaId Docket type Entries _ PrIncipal FInal Outcome r-- Cases Opened In the MIddle District of Georgia (through June 3,2014) 1 Azlyz v, Tremble 5:03­CV­412 1983 ­ dvil rights 2 Oaker v, Donald 5:04­CV­337 1983 ­ civil rights dismissed (voluntarily) 3 Daker v. Donald --- S:04­CV­392 1983 ­ dvil rIghts dismissed (voluntarily) 4 Oaker v, GOGC 5:0S­CV­205 1983 ­ dvil rights dIsmIssed (voluntarily! SOaker v. Owens 6 Oaker v, Humphrey S:12­CV­459 5:12­CV­461 . 7 Daker v, Head S:14­CV­138 IFP denied ------ IFP denied request denied 107 Yes ------- -- . enied ­ See Daker v,Tremble, No, 05­11696 & d voluntarily dismissed ­ See Daker v, Tremble, No, OS­13697 45 . 29 dismissed 1983 ­ civil rights r­­­160 dismissed pursuant to Section 1915(g) 1983 ­ civil rights 2241­ habeas dismissed pursuant to Section 1915(g} Yes 12 Yes dismissed -ill Daker v, Comm'r, No, 13­13398 & Daker v, Camm'r, No, 14­11571; see alsQ Oaker v, Comm'r, No, 14-12139 7 Yes --- Cases Opened In the Southern DIstrict of Georgia (through June 3, 20141 11Daker v, Head 16:14­CV­47 I ---- ---- cert denle( Result on Appeal -- - -- 1983 ­ civil rights pending 2 1331­ diversity dismissed with prejudice (frivolous/malicious) 9 Yes Cases Opened in the Central District of California (through June 3, 2014) 11Daker v, Mokwa 12: 14­CV­395 IF? denied 1 1 Appeals and Original Actions Opened in the Eleventh Circuit (through June 3,2014) 1 Daker v. Warren 10­15028 IFP denied f-dismissed dismissed as fivolous mandamus petition dismissed as frivolous Yes Yes dismissed for want of prosecution dismissed (voluntarily) --Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 In re: Daker 3 In re: Daker 4 In re: Daker 5 In re: Daker 11­11937 12­12072 12­12073 IFP denied IF? denied IFP denied 12­12074 IFP denied 6 Georgia v. Daker 12­12519 12­12820 IF!' denied IF? denied 12­13644 9 In re: Oaker Daker v. Warren 12­14369 13­11630 11 Daker v, Comm'r 12 Daker v, Warren 13­13398 dismissed for want of prosecution 13­14446 pending 13 Daker v, Robinson 14 Daker v, Dawes 13­14873 13­14878 pending (consolidated wIth 13­14878) pending (consolidated with 13­14873) 15 Daker v. Warren Oaker Y. Warren 17 Daker y, Warren 13­15932 - - 13­15936 13­15938 18 Daker v, Sheriff 13­15939 pending pending pending pending 19 Daker v. Unnamed 20 Daker v, Sheriff 13­15941 pendIng 7 Daker v, Warren 8 Daker v, Sheriff r--w on appeal dismissed for want of prosecution dIsmissed Yes IFP denied dismissed Yes IFP denIed mandamus petition dismissed as frivolous dismissed as frivolous --- 21 Daker v, Robinson 22 Daker v. Dawes -23 Daker v. Comm'r 24 Daker v. Comm'r 14­10096 '_. 14-10779 14­10780 14­11571 14­12139 Yes f-- f­- ­ ----- pending dismissed dismissed dismissed for want of prosecution pending "three strikes" noted "three strikes" noted --- j­­­­. Appeals Flied In the Ninth Circuit (through June 3, 2014) 1 Daker v. Mokwa 114­55653 IF? denied ____ - - - . -.. -.. _- _.. _...... - http://gwinnettasses sor.manatron. comJIWantTo!PropertyGlS Search/Pro... Jperty Detail Tax Assessor's Office j want To ... Tax Assessor Property Detail Go Back Comparable Sales Property Report Property ID Alternate ID DAKER WASEEM 1888 AUSllNS POINTE DR LAWRENCEVILLE GA 30043-3952 R7056404 ... _"_." ......,, .... 33237684 - Address 1888 AUSllNS POINTE DR Property Class Residential SFR Neighborhood 7326 Deed Acres 0.4400 Value History Year 2014 2013 2012 2011 Reason Notice of Current Assessment Notice of Current Assessment Notice of Current Assessment Notice of Current Assessment 2010 2009 2007 2006 Bid Added, Updated or Razed New Parcel Land Val $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $92,000 Imp Val $328.100 $328,100 $328,100 $470,600 Total Appr $398,100 $398,100 $398,100 Land Assd $28,000 $28,000 Land Use $0 $0 $28,000 ......._$0 lmpAssd $131,240 Total Assd $159,240 $82,800 $0 $82,800 $398,100 $33,120 ... $0 ""''''--''''''- $131,240 $159,240 $0 $159,240 $33,120 Transfer History . Book . Page Vacant Land Sale Price Date Owner Grantee Deed 49774 852 10126/2009 ' WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATIO DAKER WASEEM WD !:!! No $394,900 49517 . 886 51512009 CH.l>.RLES MARIE MICHELLE WELLS FARGO BANK NAllONAL ASSOCIAllO WD NG No $277,533 BAINBRlDGE HOMES LLC CH.l>.RLES MARIE MICHELLE WD QY.. No . $579,429 • TULLIS DEVELOPMENTS INC BAINBRIDGE HOMES LLC No $926,100 . 47039 259 • 911812006 43219. 242 1213112005 .-.-,..-.-.-, .. Floor Areas 'Story Exterior Features Attribute Detoil Type 2 Story Conventional Single family Gable-Hip Comp sh 240-250# Forced hot air Central air 2.0 OccllJlancy Roof Structure Roof Cover Heating flJC Stories Iperty Detail http://gwinnettassessoLmanatroRcomlrwantTo/PropertyGISSearchfPro... 1 1 1.5 1.5 2 Address 1888 AUSTINS POINTE DR Type 2 4 Bathrooms Bathrooms (Ha!!) Feature Feature Exterior \Nail Interior Flooring Exterior \Nail Interior Flooring Exterior \Nail Interior Flooring Fireplace Fireplace Brick Base Allowance Brick Base Allowance Brick Base Allowance Col1\lentional Grade B Year Built 2005 Value $328,100 Improvements do not exist for this account. Land Type Acres Eff. Frontage Eff. Depth R01 • Primary Site Primary Use 0.44 o o Legal Description Line Description L6 BAAUSTINS POINTE Terms Of Use Privacy Statement Copyright 2014 by Gwinnett County Assessor's OffICe Detail http://gyviunetttaxconnnissioner.manatroncomlTabs/ViewPayYourTaxe... Tax Account Parcel ID Property Type Real R7056404 Status Active Vrr.n<>rrv Mailing Address: DAKER WASEEM 1888 AUSTINS POINTE DR LAWRENCEVILLE, GA 30043-3952 Tax District COUNTY Unincorporated Situs: 18 88 AUSTlNS POINTE DR legal Description l6 BA AUSTINS POINTE Tax Values Class Codes 101-Residential SFR Assessed Value $159,240.00 Assessments Savings Operation Sub Total Bond Net Tax Savings Net Tax Savings School Taxes Sub Total Special Assessment Tax Installment Information Period Bill Number INST 1 21949900 Tax Year .-....._...... i··· ......···-· 2013 Total Due: Payment History Bill Number 2013 L_ _ _ _ _._____ ._._____ Tax Year Receipt Number Last Paid 21949900_ _ _.c..._._._.____._._. __.__. __.,.___________-'.__•..__._-'_"-__._ __.__.. _.....____...___...__........__.__ 613.51479 9/14/2013 _ _ _.. _ _ _

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.