Waseem Daker v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections
694 F. App'x 765
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff: Waseem Daker, a Georgia prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- District court sua sponte determined Daker’s allegation of poverty was untruthful and dismissed his complaint on that ground under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A).
- The district court’s order did not state that the dismissal was without prejudice; therefore it operated as a dismissal with prejudice (an adjudication on the merits).
- Daker appealed pro se, arguing the court erred by dismissing sua sponte without giving notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and considered precedent requiring notice and opportunity to respond before imposing dismissal with prejudice for false pauper allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may dismiss IFP claim sua sponte for untruthful poverty allegation without notice | Daker: district court must provide notice and chance to explain before dismissal with prejudice | District court: authority under § 1915(e)(2)(A) to dismiss when allegation is untrue (and dismissed here) | Court: reversal — must give notice and opportunity to be heard before dismissing with prejudice |
| Whether dismissal here operated as dismissal with prejudice | Daker: dismissal barred refiling; court did not state otherwise | District court: (did not specify) relied on § 1915(e)(2)(A) to dismiss | Court: dismissal is treated as with prejudice absent express statement to contrary; thus requires procedural protections |
| Whether past skepticism about Daker’s filings permits dispensing with notice | Daker: prior skepticism insufficient to eliminate requirement of notice | District court: prior cases cast doubt on veracity of his poverty claims | Court: prior skepticism does not excuse failing to provide notice and opportunity to explain |
| Whether sua sponte dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate sanction without clear pattern of misconduct | Daker: no finding of willfulness or bad faith and no chance to respond | District court: implicitly sanctioned by dismissing under § 1915(e)(2)(A) | Court: sua sponte dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction and was an abuse of discretion here |
Key Cases Cited
- Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corrs., 820 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for IFP denial)
- Dawson v. Lennon, 797 F.2d 934 (11th Cir. 1986) (dismissal with prejudice only for willful or bad-faith deception under prior § 1915)
- Collier v. Tatum, 722 F.2d 653 (11th Cir. 1983) (court should give inmate chance to explain withdrawals before denying pauper status)
- Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) (error to dismiss sua sponte without notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043 (11th Cir. 2007) (prohibiting sua sponte dismissals with prejudice absent notice and opportunity to respond)
- Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) (dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction reserved for clear pattern of misconduct)
- Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (1961) (sua sponte dismissal on a ground not in Rule 41 operates as adjudication on the merits)