Waseem Daker v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections
820 F.3d 1278
| 11th Cir. | 2016

Background

  • Plaintiff Waseem Daker, a Georgia state prisoner, filed a pro se civil-rights complaint and sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status and a preliminary injunction for law-library access.
  • The Commissioner moved to dismiss, arguing Daker was ineligible for IFP because he had at least three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and was not indigent.
  • The Commissioner identified six prior federal filings dismissed: two for lack of jurisdiction and four for want of prosecution (three of which followed single-judge denials of IFP as "frivolous").
  • The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation, found Daker had six strikes and was not indigent, denied IFP, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and denied the injunction for lack of evidentiary support.
  • Daker timely objected to the magistrate judge’s report under the prison-mailbox rule; the district court missed that filing and thus did not consider his arguments about indigence.
  • The Eleventh Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded, holding the identified dismissals did not qualify as § 1915(g) strikes and that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider Daker’s timely objections on indigence.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether prior dismissals for lack of jurisdiction or want of prosecution count as § 1915(g) strikes Daker: Those dismissals do not show prior orders were "dismissed on the grounds that" they were frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim Commissioner: Six prior dismissals (two jurisdictional, four want of prosecution) demonstrate three or more strikes making Daker ineligible for IFP Held: Vacated district court — dismissals for lack of jurisdiction or want of prosecution, without an order showing the dismissal was on the enumerated grounds, are not § 1915(g) strikes
Whether a single judge’s denial of IFP as frivolous converts a later panel dismissal for want of prosecution into a § 1915(g) strike Daker: A panel’s dismissal must itself show the enumerated grounds; single-judge IFP denials do not alter the panel’s stated grounds Commissioner: Single-judge frivolous determination is the "but-for" cause of subsequent panel dismissal and should count as a strike Held: Rejected the but-for theory; panel dismissals that state want of prosecution and not frivolous do not qualify as strikes even if a single judge earlier denied IFP as frivolous
Whether the district court properly found Daker not indigent based on Zillow valuation and other records Daker: Zillow Zestimate is unreliable; he provided market comparables and asserted mortgage/debt burdens; he timely objected to magistrate’s report Commissioner: Daker failed to object to magistrate report and other materials (Zillow, prior report) show non-indigence Held: District court abused discretion by failing to consider Daker’s timely objections (prison-mailbox rule); remand for consideration of indigence in first instance
Whether denial of preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion Daker: Claimed lack of law-library access warranting injunction Commissioner: No adequate factual showing of injury or need Held: No abuse of discretion in denying preliminary injunction; court did not reach on remand further because injunction denial was affirmed

Key Cases Cited

  • Dobbs v. Costle, 559 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1977) (canon urging close textual reading of statutes)
  • Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for IFP denials)
  • Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2004) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
  • Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (jurisdictional dismissals do not decide merits)
  • Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (definition of frivolous pleadings)
  • Hafed v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2011) (contrasting view that single-judge frivolous IFP denials can cause strikes)
  • Thompson v. DEA, 492 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (similar approach to Hafed on but-for causation)
  • Butler v. Department of Justice, 492 F.3d 440 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (clarifying that want-of-prosecution dismissals say nothing about merits)
  • Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (statutory interpretation of § 1915(g))
  • Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2013) (requiring some indication in dismissal order that claim is frivolous)
  • Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627 (U.S. 2016) (discussing § 1915 purposes and deterrence of frivolous suits)
Read the full case