DAKER v. BRYSON, 6:17-cv-00079

Background

Plaintiff Waseem Daker, an inmate at Georgia State Prison, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA alleging religious-rights violations, due-process defects from Tier II placements, and denial of certain medical items (e.g., Sensodyne toothpaste).
Middle District of Georgia dismissed claims against defendants residing there and transferred the case to the Southern District of Georgia. The Southern District instructed Daker to file a narrowed Amended Complaint on a court form with a ten-page supplement limit.
Daker sought multiple extensions, claimed limited access to research and wrist surgery hindered his ability to draft an amended complaint, and repeatedly filed numerous pleadings including a 119‑page proposed amended complaint that included unrelated claims and previously-dismissed defendants.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to follow the Court’s order to state related claims against related defendants; the Magistrate also denied further extension, free copies, and IFP status on appeal.
The District Court overruled Daker’s objections, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, denied appointment of counsel and evidentiary hearing, denied permission to exceed the page limit, and closed the case.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's/ Court's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal without prejudice was proper for failure to file a compliant Amended Complaint	Daker argued he needed more pages, law-library access, and time due to wrist surgery and other disruptions to prepare a full complaint	Court viewed Daker’s many post‑R&R filings (including a 119‑page proposed amended complaint) as undermining his excuses and found he ignored instructions to limit claims to related defendants	Dismissal without prejudice was affirmed; objections overruled
Whether the page limit (form + 10 pages) violated Rule 18(a) or Simmons	Daker argued the limit forced him to drop claims and infringed Rule 18(a) and Simmons principle	Court explained Rule 18(a) does not permit joining unrelated claims against different defendants; Simmons is inapposite	Page limit upheld; motion to exceed denied
Whether Daker was entitled to appointment of counsel	Daker requested counsel to help draft the amended complaint	Court applied the "exceptional circumstances" standard and found the case not legally or factually so complex and noted Daker’s prolific filings	Motion to appoint counsel denied
Whether Daker was entitled to free copies, access to case authorities, evidentiary hearing, or extension(s)	Daker sought free copies, mandated access to cited authorities, an evidentiary hearing to prove his medical excuse, and additional extensions	Court found no new evidence or manifest error warranting reconsideration; prison officials—not court—must handle copying requests; the record did not support his asserted inability to draft filings	Motions denied or denied in part; requests for copies and forms granted administratively, extensions and hearings denied

Key Cases Cited

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968) (one constitutional right should not be surrendered to assert another)
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (unrelated claims against different defendants should not be joined in one suit)
Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 1999) (appointment of counsel under § 1915 is discretionary)
Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088 (11th Cir. 1990) (appointment of counsel in civil cases is limited to exceptional circumstances)
Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025 (11th Cir. 1987) (discussing standards for appointment of counsel)
Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189 (11th Cir. 1993) (assessing whether pro se litigant needs counsel to present essential merits)
McDaniels v. Lee, [citation="405 F. App'x 456"] (11th Cir. 2010) (no entitlement to appointed counsel absent exceptional circumstances)
Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2010) (standards for Rule 59(e) reconsideration)
Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757 (11th Cir. 2005) (Rule 59(e) cannot relitigate matters or present evidence that could have been raised earlier)
Smith v. Warden, Hardee Corr. Inst., [citation="597 F. App'x 1027"] (11th Cir. 2014) (prisoners not entitled to special consideration in appointment of counsel)