Waseem Daker v. Sheriff
19-13672
| 11th Cir. | Jul 14, 2021Background:
- Daker is serving life plus 47 years for murder. While incarcerated, guards ordered another inmate to shave his beard; guards accused Daker of kicking them, and he was charged with two counts of obstruction.
- At initial Tattnall County Superior Court appearances in 2017, the state court denied bail twice without a hearing or explanation, despite Daker’s requests to be heard.
- Daker filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition alleging the state court’s bail denials violated his due process rights by denying him an opportunity to be heard and by failing to explain the denials.
- A magistrate judge recommended dismissal as moot and for lack of “in custody” status; the district court disagreed on custody and mootness but dismissed anyway, concluding no relief was available even if bail had been improperly denied.
- Daker filed a post-judgment motion signed August 29, 2019, but filed September 9; the district court treated it as a Rule 60(b) motion and denied relief. Daker appealed; this Court certified two questions and appointed counsel.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by sua sponte dismissing Daker’s bail claims as moot | Daker: bail denial without hearing violated due process; claims not moot because he is under indictment and a detainer exists; relief could matter if murder conviction overturned | District court: even if bail wrongly denied, no relief is available because Daker remains incarcerated on his murder sentence | Court: dismissal as moot was error but affirm because claims are not ripe—relief depends on contingent future event (overturning murder conviction), so reversal would be futile |
| Whether district court erred in construing Daker’s Rule 59(e) motion as Rule 60(b) by finding it untimely (mailbox rule) | Daker: he delivered the Rule 59(e) motion to prison officials on Aug 29 (date he signed); under mailbox rule it was timely | Government/District court: motion filed Sept 9; missed 28‑day Rule 59(e) deadline | Court: district court erred in not applying the prison mailbox rule and mischaracterizing the motion, but remand would be futile because underlying claims remain unripe |
Key Cases Cited
- Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) (allows sua sponte dismissal without notice when reversal would be futile)
- Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 947 F.3d 649 (11th Cir. 2020) (procedural requirement to give notice/opportunity to respond before sua sponte dismissal)
- Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2017) (appellate authority may affirm on any ground supported by the record)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (mootness requires a continuing personal stake and redressability)
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. F.E.R.C., 140 F.3d 1392 (11th Cir. 1998) (ripeness doctrine—claims resting on contingent future events are not ripe)
- Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of district court’s interpretation of the prison mailbox rule)
- Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001) (government bears burden to show pro se prisoner did not deliver filing on claimed date)