Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-118-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-119-RWS
01-16-2014
WASEEM DAKER (GDC 901373), Plaintiff, v. JOHN ROBINSON, et al., Defendants. WASEEM DAKER (GDC 901373), Plaintiff, v. JOHN MARK DAWES, Defendant.
PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS
42 U.S.C. § 1983
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on state inmate Waseem Daker's "Rule 59(e) Motion to Vacate 9/12/13 Order and Judgment" [-118 Doc. 21; -119 Doc. 21] and "Rule 59(e) Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story and Motion to Vacate 9/12/13 Order and Judgment" [-118 Doc. 22; -119 Doc. 22]. For the following reasons, each of those motions is DENIED.
Daker has been the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant in over fifty cases and appeals filed in courts in the Eleventh Circuit. See www.pacer.gov (searched for "Daker, Waseem"; last viewed January 16, 2014). Daker has been repeatedly cautioned that it is a violation of this Court's Local Rules to file motions for reconsideration as a matter of routine practice and that motions for reconsideration of the denial of earlier motions for reconsideration are prohibited. See, e.g., [-118 Doc. 19; -119 Doc. 19]. Nevertheless, Daker has done exactly that here.
Daker's "Rule 59(e) Motion to Vacate 9/12/13 Order and Judgment" [-118 Doc. 21; -119 Doc. 21] is a motion to reconsider the denial of his previous motions to reconsider the denial of his applications for permission to proceed in forma pauperis in these cases. See, e.g., [-118 Doc. 6 ("Motion for Reconsideration of 2/19/12 Order Denying Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis") & Doc. 8 ("Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of 2/9/12 Order Denying Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis"); -119 Doc. 6 (same) & Doc. 8 (same)]. These two motions are denied because they have been filed in violation of this Court's Local Rules. See LR 7.2E, NDGa. And, in any event, Daker's requests for permission to proceed in forma pauperis in these cases were appropriately denied on the merits, as detailed in prior Orders. See, e.g., [-118 Docs. 3, 10, 19; -119 Docs. 3, 10, 19].
It is worth noting that Daker has now accumulated "three strikes" and he is no longer eligible to proceed in forma pauperis in § 1983 cases like these unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical harm. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Daker v. Warren, No. 1:13-CV-3053-RWS (N.D. Ga. Sept. 11, 2013) [Doc. 5 therein]. Although some of those strikes post-date Daker's filing of complaints in the two cases listed in the caption, they pre-date the filing of his appeals in these cases, see [-118 Doc. 23; -119 Doc. 23], and should be considered in determining whether he is eligible to bring this appeal in forma pauperis, as neither complaint alleges that he is in "imminent danger."
Daker's "Rule 59(e) Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story and Motion to Vacate 9/12/13 Order and Judgment" [-118 Doc. 22; -119 Doc. 22] is, in essence, a motion for reconsideration of the denial of Daker's prior "Motion to Recuse Judge[] Richard W. Story" [-118 Doc. 4; -119 Doc. 4], and "Supplement to Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story" [-118 Doc. 9; -119 Doc. 9]. Those motions were denied on the merits for the reasons stated in prior Orders. See [-118 Doc. 10; -119 Doc. 10].
Daker now contends that reconsideration is supported by "newly discovered evidence, new developments, the need to correct clear error, or the need to correct manifest injustice." [-118 Doc. 22 at 1; -119 Doc. 22 at 1]. The sole new support Daker offers, however, is his own unsubstantiated allegation that the undersigned had ex parte conversations in September 2012 with the state court judge who presided over Daker's state murder trial. See [-118 Doc. 22 at ¶¶ 10-13; -119 Doc. 22 at ¶¶ 10-13]. Daker, however, offers no evidence to backup this bare allegation.
Daker also continues to complain that the undersigned's denial of motions that he filed in his numerous other federal cases amount to "rubberstamp ruling against Mr. Daker [and] display a deap-seated favoritism or antagonism." [-118 Doc. 22 at 2; Doc. -119 Doc. 2 at 2]. This repeats an argument that Daker made in his original recusal motions and supplements. See, e.g., [-118 Doc. 4 at 2-4; -119 Doc. 4 at 2-4]. As that argument has already been considered and denied on the merits, see [-118 Doc. 10 at 3; -119 Doc. 10 at 3], and a motion for reconsideration is an inappropriate way to "relitigate old matters," Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla. 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005), this old argument warrants neither reconsideration, nor additional discussion.
--------
There are only two grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e): "'newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.'" Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999)). Here, Daker has neither presented any new evidence, nor identified any manifest error. Rather, Daker is simply seeking to "relitigate old matters, raise argument, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment," none of which is a basis for relief in a Rule 59(e) motion. Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla. 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). Because Daker is not entitled to relief under Rule 59(e), his motions for reconsideration are appropriately denied.
Once again, Daker is reminded that this Court's Local Rules prohibit the filing of motions for reconsideration as a matter of routine practice and prohibit altogether the filing of "motions to reconsider the court's denial of a prior motion for reconsideration." LR 7.2E, NDGa.
__________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE