Waseem Daker v. John Robinson
694 F. App'x 768
11th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Waseem Daker, proceeding pro se, filed two § 1983 complaints alleging unlawful search and seizure of his vehicle and property.
- Daker sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the district court denied IFP and ordered payment of $700 in filing fees for the two cases.
- The district court found Daker not indigent based on his affidavit disclosing ownership of a home valued at about $395,000 with a $345,000 mortgage and roughly $50,000 net worth (he later asserted $25,000 in student loans).
- Daker failed to pay the ordered filing fees and the district court dismissed both complaints without prejudice.
- Daker moved to alter or amend the judgments and sought recusal of the magistrate judge who had presided over prior proceedings; the district court denied those motions.
- Daker appealed the dismissals, the denial of IFP, denial of post-judgment relief, and denial of recusal; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Daker established indigence for IFP | Daker claimed inability to pay due to student loans and alleged inability to liquidate his home | Court relied on affidavit showing significant net worth and home equity; ability to pay $700 | Court: Daker was not indigent; IFP properly denied (IFP is a privilege) |
| Whether dismissal for failure to pay filing fees was appropriate | Daker argued dismissal improper because he could not pay | District court warned about consequences; dismissal without prejudice if fees unpaid | Court: Dismissal without prejudice was within discretion for nonpayment after warning |
| Whether motions to alter/amend judgments were properly denied | Daker challenged footnote referencing "three strikes" and sought reconsideration | District court noted motions violated local rule against successive reconsideration and lacked new evidence or manifest error | Court: Denial proper—motions procedurally and substantively deficient |
| Whether magistrate judge should have recused | Daker claimed prior involvement and adverse rulings created appearance of partiality and potential witness issues | Defendants: prior rulings and familiarity do not require recusal; allegations speculative | Court: Recusal not required; allegations were unsupported and familiarity/ adverse rulings insufficient to create objective doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004) (affidavit must show poverty to qualify for IFP)
- Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434 (11th Cir. 1986) (proceeding IFP is a privilege, not a right)
- Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989) (dismissal for noncompliance with court order is permissible)
- Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1983) (failure to comply with fee orders can warrant dismissal)
- Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007) (standards for Rule 59 motions to alter or amend)
- Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2000) (recusal standard: objective, informed lay observer must harbor significant doubt)
- United States v. Berger, 375 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2004) (adverse rulings do not alone mandate recusal)
- Giles v. Garwood, 853 F.2d 876 (11th Cir. 1988) (unsupported or tenuous allegations do not require recusal)