From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Daker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Jun 5, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-3580-RWS (N.D. Ga. Jun. 5, 2014)

Summary

summarizing Plaintiff's litigation history

Summary of this case from Daker v. Dozier

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-1711-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-3580-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-118-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-119-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-1141-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-1319-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-2605-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-2782-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-1554-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-3053-RWS

06-05-2014

IN RE: WASEEM DAKER


ORDER

The ten cases listed in the caption are before the Court on more than thirty motions and objections to Final Reports and Recommendations filed by state inmate, Waseem Daker. The Court has carefully reviewed and considered each of Daker's filings and is now prepared to rule on each of them. Because these filings constitute only a small fraction of the more than one thousand submissions Daker has made in seventy-one civil cases and appeals in the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, the Southern District of Georgia, the Central District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, see Appendix A, the Court first summarizes Daker's criminal and litigation history.

I. Waseem Daker's Criminal and Litigation History

In Part I, the CM/ECF numbers in brackets refer to docket entries in the case indicated by the preceding case number, abbreviated in the format "##-CV-####." For example, "11-CV-1711 [14-1] at 3," refers to page number 3 of CM/ECF document 14-1 in Daker v. Warren, No. 1:11-CV-1711-RWS (N.D. Ga. 2011). Unless explicitly noted, the case numbers refer to cases filed in the Northern District of Georgia.

A. Daker's Criminal Convictions

In 1996, Daker was convicted by a Cobb County jury on two counts of aggravated stalking. See 11-CV-1711 [14-1] at 3. Daker served two consecutive five-year terms and was released in 2005. Id.

In 2010, Daker was indicted for malice murder, felony murder (four counts), burglary with intent to commit aggravated assault, burglary with intent to commit aggravated stalking, false imprisonment, aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, and criminal attempt to commit aggravated stalking. See 12-CV-1141 [1] at 3. Pending trial, Daker was held without bond. See 12-CV-2605 [1] at 2. After electing to terminate his court-appointed lawyers and represent himself at trial, Daker was convicted on all counts. Daker is now serving a life sentence.

B. Daker's Pro Se Litigation History

Beginning in 1999-while he was serving sentences for aggravated stalking-Daker began filing numerous civil rights complaints and habeas corpus petitions in this Court and others. See Appendix A. After Daker was released from prison in 2005, there was a brief hiatus in his filings. See id. However, in 2010, when Daker was arrested and held on murder and related charges, he again began to file numerous civil rights and habeas actions. See id.

As noted above, Daker has initiated or been involved in seventy-one civil cases and appeals in the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, the Southern District of Georgia, the Central District of California, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit through June 4, 2014. See id.

Despite the volume of his litigation, Daker has won virtually nothing. Insofar as appears from the dockets in each of his cases, Daker has been awarded just $2 in monetary damages. See 00-CV-1065 [90]. Indeed, since then, the only additional relief of any sort that Daker appears to have ultimately been awarded in any case was short-lived injunctive relief with respect to "weekly Ta'lim services." See 01-CV-3257 [280] (reciting the history of that case in which all of Daker's other claims had been dismissed or denied and injunctive relief had expired).

The costs awarded to Daker in that case-approximately $710, see 00-CV-1065 [90]-have been dwarfed by the costs awarded against him in other cases, see, e.g., 03-CV-2481 [299] (awarding $1474 in costs to defendants); 03-CV-2526 [127] (awarding costs to defendants).

In the cases that Daker has filed since 2001, he appears to have won no ultimate relief. Rather, it appears that all of his claims have been: (1) dismissed voluntarily, see, e.g., 02-CV-1361 [41]; (2) dismissed involuntarily, see, e.g., 06-CV-54 [23]; (3) denied on summary judgment, see, e.g., 03-CV-2526 [126]; or (4) in the one additional instance he reached a jury, rejected, see, e.g., 03-CV-2481 [293]. Daker's appeals have been similarly fruitless, with those that have been fully-adjudicated generally having ended in dismissal either (1) because the circuit court deemed them frivolous, see, e.g., In re Daker, No. 11-11937 (11th Cir.); In re Daker, No. 12-12072 (11th Cir.); In re Daker, No. 12-14369 (11th Cir.); Daker v. Warren, 13-11630 (11th Cir.); or (2) for want of prosecution, see, e.g., In re Daker, No. 12-12073 (11th Cir.); Georgia v. Daker, No. 12-12519 (11th Cir.); Daker v. Comm'r, No. 13-13398 (11th Cir.)

C. Daker and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g): "Three Strikes"

In light of Daker's litigation history, the Eleventh Circuit "has determined that the 'three strikes' provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995[, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)], is applicable to" him. See, e.g., Letter dated May 29, 2014, in Daker v. Comm'r, No. 14-12139 (11th Cir. 2014); Letter dated April 18, 2014, in Daker' v. Comm'r, No. 14-11571 (11th Cir. 2014) (same). This determination followed the entry of a Final Report and Recommendation in this Court recommending that Daker be determined to have accumulated "three strikes," see 13-CV-3053 [5] at 1-2 (listing six strikes), and a finding by the Middle District of Georgia that Daker had accumulated three or more strikes, see Daker v. Owens, No. 5:12-CV-459-CAR (M.D. Ga. Mar. 21, 2014) [134].

Consequently, in any new case where Daker does not adequately allege that he is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury," 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), "the proper procedure is for the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies . . . leave to proceed in forma pauperis." Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). Daker "cannot simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status. He must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates suit." Id. (emphasis in original).

D. Daker's "Indigence"

Furthermore, it has become clear over time that Daker is not entitled in any event to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") because he is not indigent. Rather, it appears that Daker has repeatedly abused the judicial process by filing IFP affidavits that conceal and/or misstate his true assets and income.

Gwinnett County tax records indicate that Daker owns a home that has a market value of over $398,000 and that, despite his incarceration, Daker has remained current on tax payments, including through a payment of $6,084.36 on September 14, 2013. See http://gwinnetttaxcommissioner.manatron.com/Tabs/ ViewPayYourTaxes/AccountDetail/BillDetail.aspx?p=R7056%20404& a=33237684&b=21949900&y=2013# (last viewed June 4, 2014) (attached as Exhibit B). Despite Daker's recent unsubstantiated protestations that his house is now worth less than its $345,000 mortgage-a debt he self-reported, but has not documented-, Daker has plainly found it worthwhile to maintain his ownership of that home. And, despite his claim of indigence, Daker has plainly found the income or assets with which to make timely tax payments.

Daker did not claim that his home was worth less than he had paid for it in 2009 until this Court denied one of his requests for IFP status in light of the $50,000 in home equity that he had disclosed. See, e.g., 12-CV-2782 [7] at 2.

Moreover, Daker has acknowledged that he has permitted family members to live in his house while he is incarcerated. See, e.g., 10-CV-2084 [2] ("The following persons live in my house: my father, Anas Daker, my mother, Amal Daker, and my brother, Jameh Daker.") Whether those family members are paying rent or other consideration or whether their residence in the house simply precludes Daker from generating income from paying renters, there is plainly a substantial income stream associated with the house that Daker is either not disclosing or voluntarily electing to forego in order to claim indigence.

Furthermore, other substantial assets that Daker has disclosed in past IFP affidavits, including, for example, "a car that is paid off in full," 11-CV-1401 [2] at 2, have vanished without explanation from Daker's subsequent disclosures of assets, even as he continues to claim that he has "had no income" since January 10, 2010, Daker v. Motokwa, No. 14-55653 (9th Cir. 2014) [IFP Affidavit filed on May 19, 2014, Item 11]. And Daker has stated that he granted a power of attorney to a relative to handle his financial affairs outside of prison so that "said information" would not be subject to "monitoring" by prison officials, 12-CV-119 [3], without ever disclosing the nature of and value of the assets that he is permitting others to manage on his behalf.

As noted above, this information, which has been revealed only in bits and pieces over time, unmistakably indicates that Daker has abused the judicial process by filing IFP affidavits that conceal and/or misstate his real assets and income. Consequently, Daker is not eligible to proceed IFP.

E. Daker's Motions for Reconsideration

Daker has also abused the judicial process through the repeated filing of motions for reconsideration. Despite having been advised often that this Court's Local Rules provide that "[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice," LR 7.2E, NDGa., Daker nonetheless has done so and continues to do so in many cases. See Appendix A. In support of his post-judgment motions, Daker will frequently file multiple "supplemental" pleadings. See, e.g., 11 -CV-1711 [38, 39, 42, 43, 44]. These post-judgment motions have served only to unnecessarily prolong litigation in this Court, and many appear to have been filed, in whole or in part, to extend Daker's time to prepare and file appeals.

F. Daker's Motions to Recuse

All of Daker's cases in this Court have been assigned to the undersigned, save for one transferred to the Honorable Amy Totenberg when she was first appointed to serve in the Northern District. See Appendix A. For more than a decade, from 1999 through 2011, Daker raised no objection to these case assignments. In 2011, however, Daker began to file what have since become routine motions to recuse. See 10-CV-3815 [20]. Indeed, Daker now frequently files multiple motions to recuse in the same case. See, e.g., id. [20, 27, 43, 68].

Although in each subsequent motion to recuse, Daker sometimes adds additional, unsubstantiated accusations, his core "bias" and "conspiracy" claims remain the same. Both this Court and the Eleventh Circuit have thoroughly considered Daker's motions and concluded that recusal is not warranted, as "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for bias." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Nor is recusal required where "the judge acquired knowledge of relevant facts through prior judicial proceedings." Order dated Oct. 9, 2012, in Georgia v. Daker, No. 12-12519 (11th Cir. Oct. 9, 2012) (citing Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324, 1334 (11th Cir. 2000) (considering Daker's arguments under both 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455). And, "[a] charge of partiality must be supported by some factual basis . . . . Recusal cannot be based on unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation." United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Daker's motions to recuse do not meet those standards.

Further discussion of the reasons the Court has declined to recuse can be found in the Orders addressing Daker's motions to recuse, including 12-CV-572 [4, 7], 12-CV-119 [10], and 12-CV-118 [10]. That discussion is not repeated here.

II. Pending Motions and Objections

In Part II, the CM/ECF numbers in brackets refer to docket entries in the case identified in the numbered paragraph.
--------

With that background in mind, the Court now turns to the ten cases listed in the caption and Daker's many pending filings in them.

1. No. 1:11-CV-1711

Daker has filed a "Motion for Service of Order Denying Certificate of Appealability and Denying In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal; Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal" [54]. That motion is DENIED.

The docket reflects that the February 28, 2014 Order that Daker claims never to have received was mailed to him at the address he had provided to this Court and that it was not returned as undeliverable. See [Unnmbrd Dkt. Entry dated Feb. 28, 2014]. Daker's motion indicates that he learned no later than March 4, 2014, that the February 28 Order had been entered. [54] at 1. This was well within the 30-day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). No extension of the appeal period was warranted. See id. (a)(5). Indeed, Daker later filed a notice of appeal in this case that he dated March 30, 2014. [55].

2. No. 1:11-CV-3580

Daker's "Motion for Service of Order Denying Certificate of Appealability and Denying In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal; Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal" [50] is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the discussion above with respect to the identical motion in 1 l-CV-1711.

Daker's "Motion to Reconsider Court's 1/16/14 Order" [32] and "Supplemental Motion to Reconsider Court's 1/16/14 Order" [42] are DENIED. First, the Court's January 16 Order denied Daker's previous Rule 59(e) Motions to Vacate, and this Court's Local Rules prohibit motions to reconsider motions to reconsider. See LR 7.2E, NDGa. Second, the footnote in the January 16 Order that Daker demands be reconsidered and vacated deals with Daker's "strikes" in prior cases and appeals. As discussed above, the Eleventh Circuit, this Court, and the Middle District of Georgia have all concluded that Daker has accumulated more than three "strikes." Third, 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, 197F.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).

Daker's "Request for Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis'' on appeal [38] and "Request for Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" on appeal [40] are DENIED because he is ineligible to proceed IFP in new appeals now that he has accumulated more than three strikes, unless he can show that he is "under imminent danger of serious physical harm," which he has not attempted to do in this case, and because, as discussed above, it does not appear that Daker is actually indigent.

4. No. 1:12-CV-119

Daker's "Motion to Reconsider Court's 1/16/14 Order" [32], "Request for Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" on appeal [37], and "Request for Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" on appeal [38], and "Supplemental Motion to Reconsider Court's 1/16/2014 Order" [40] are DENIED for the reasons set forth above in the discussion of the identical motions filed in 12-CV-118.

5. No. 1:12-CV-1141

Daker's "Motion for Service of Order Denying Certificate of Appealability and Denying In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal; Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal" [39] is DENIED for the reasons set forth above in the discussion of the identical motion filed in 11-CV-1711.

6. No. 1:12-CV-1319

Daker's "Motion for Service of Order Denying Certificate of Appealability and Denying In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal; Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal" [34] is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the discussion above with respect to 11 -CV-1711.

7. No. 1:12-CV-2605

Daker's "Motion for Service of Order Denying Certificate of Appealabilty and Denying In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal; Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal" [34] is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the discussion above with respect to 11 -CV-1711.

8. No. 1:12-CV-2782

Daker's "Motion to Extend Time to Object to Magistrate's October 29, 2013 Report and Recommendation" [12] is GRANTED.

Daker's "Objection" [13] is OVERRULED.

After de novo review, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Final Report and Recommendation [9] as the Order of the Court.

Daker's "Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story" [11] and "Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield III" [15] are DENIED. As discussed above, Daker has repeatedly sought recusal of the undersigned and Magistrate Judge Scofield. This Court and the Eleventh Circuit have thoroughly considered those motions and denied them for the reasons set forth above. Daker's latest motions add nothing that would alter the conclusion that recusal is not warranted.

Daker's "Motion to Reconsider Court's 9/18/2013 Order Denying Plaintiff IFP Status" [16] and "Supplemental Motion to Reconsider 9/18/13 Order Denying Plaintiff IFP Status" [17] are DENIED. As discussed above, it is clear that Daker has repeatedly misrepresented his financial status and that he is not indigent.

9. No. 1.13-CV-1554

Daker's "Motion to Reconsider and Vacate Order Denying Motions 3, 4, 5, 6" [9] is DENIED.

Daker's "Motion to Extend Time to Pay Filing Fee" [10] is GRANTED. The Court notes, however, that the filing fee was not forthcoming from Daker by the date he proposed to pay it. No further extensions of time are warranted.

Daker's "Second Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story" [11] and "Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield III" [13] are DENIED.

Daker's "Motion to Reconsider Magistrate's 10/31/13 Order Denying In Forma Pauperis Status" [14] and "Supplemental Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

Daker's "Objection to Magistrate's 10/31/13 Report & Recommendation" [12] and "Supplemental Objection to Magistrate's 10/31/13 Report and Recommendation" [15] are OVERRULED.

After de novo review, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Final Report and Recommendation [7] as the Order of the Court.

10. No. 1:13-CV-3053

Daker's "Motion to Extend Time to Object to Magistrate's 12/30/13 Report and Recommendation" [7] is GRANTED.

Daker's "Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story" [8], "Second Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story" [9], and "Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Scofield [sic] E. Clayton Scofield, III" [10] are DENIED.

Daker's "Objection to Magistrate's 12/30/13 Report & Recommendation" [11] and "Supplemental Objection to Magistrate's December 30, 2013 Report and Recommendation" [12] are OVERRULED. Indeed, it appears that the Final R&R undercounts the total number of "strikes" that Daker has accumulated in light of Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). In that case, the Eleventh Circuit instructed district courts that (1) "[a] claim that fails to allege the requisite exhaustion of remedies is tantamount to one that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" and counts as a strike, and (2) "dismissal based on a petitioner's abuse of the judicial process is precisely the type of strike that Congress envisioned," including dismissals for want of prosecution. Id. Moreover, "[p]laintiffs are bound by the judgments in their prior cases, and may not dispute their merits in order to challenge a 'three-strikes' determination." Casey v. Scott, 493 F. App'x 1000,1001 (11th Cir. 2012). It is abundantly clear that Daker has accumulated three or more "strikes."

After de novo review, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Final Report and Recommendation [5] as the Order of the Court.

III. Further Proceedings.

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.

If Daker nonetheless seeks reconsideration of this Order and/or files any new requests to proceed IFP in this Court, he is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in those motions or requests why this Court should not exercise its "discretion to deny or revoke th[e] privilege [to proceed IFP] . . . , either retrospectively or prospectively, by looking to 'the number, content, frequency, and disposition of his previous filings.'" Hurt v. SSA, 544 F.3d 308, 310 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Butler v. DOJ, 492 F.3d 440, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2007)).

In light of Daker's more than seventy prior cases and appeals, it may be appropriate for the Court to now exercise its "more general supervisory authority to manage [its] docket so as to promote[] the interests of justice,'" and to limit the waste of judicial resources by prisoners "'for whom litigation [is] a costless pastime.'" Butler, 492 F.3d at 444-45 (quoting re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989), and Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 208 F.3d 1032, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). See also In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 180 (1991) (denying IFP status to a frequent filer in an extraordinary writ case and noting that he might be similarly restricted from filing IFP in other cases if he abused the privilege).

__________

RICHARD W. STORY

United States District Judge

APPENDIX A


Caption

Docket Number

Filing Fee Paid

Cause of Action

Principal Final Outcome

Total

Docket

Entries

Rule

59/60

type

motions

Result on Appeal

cert

denied

Cases Opened In the Northern District of Georgia (through June 3, 2014)

1

Daker v. Garner

1:99-CV-894-RWS

partial

1983 - civil rights

dismissed; Daker assessed costs

44

Yes

2

Daker v. Ray

1:99-CV-2228-RWS

1983 - civil rights

summary Judgment for defendants

194

Yes

denied - See Daker v. Rav. No. 04-11787

3

Daker v. Williams

1:99-CV-2262-RWS

1983 - civil rights

summary Judgment for defendant

60

Yes

denied - See Daker v. Whiting, No. 01-14247

4

Daker v. Ray

1:00-CV-277-RWS

full appeal fee paid

2241 - habeas

dismissed for failure to state a claim

44

denied - See Daker v. Rav, No. 01-14246

5

Daker v. Barrett

1:00-CV-065-RWS

1983 - civil rights

Daker won $2 In damages plus $750.10 In costs

119

Yes

denied - See Daker v. Barrett No. 03-155771

6

Daker v. Wetherington

1:01-CV-3257-RWS

partial

1983 - civil rights

most claims dismissed; temporary injunctive relief

granted on one RLUiPA claim

297

Yes

denied - See Daker v. Donald, No. 04-12447

7

Daker v. Ray

1:02-CV-13G1-RWS

1983 - civil rights

dismissed (voluntarily)

42

8

Daker v. Ferrero

1:03-CV-2481-RWS

full appeal fee paid

1983 - civil rights

jury verdict for defendants; Daker assessed

$1,474.16 in costs

322

Yes

denied - See Daker v. Ferrero, No. 07-15658

9

Daker v. Ferrero

1:03-CV-2526-RWS

full fee paid

1983 - civil rights

summary judgment & costs for defendants

127

10

Daker v. Barrett

1:04-CV-662-RWS

2254 - habeas

stayed

34

Yes

denied - See Daker v. Barrett, No. 05-15268

11

Daker v. Barrett

1:04-CV-1149-RW5

1983 - civil rights

dismissed (voluntarily)

15

12

Daker v. Barrett

1:04-CV-3729-RWS

full appeal fee paid

2241 - habeas

dismissed for lack of Jurisdiction

54

denied - See Daker v. Barrett, No. 07-10909

13

Daker v. GDOC

1:0S-CV-1389-RWS

1983 - civil rights

transferred to M.D. Ga.

5

Yes

14

Daker v. Benton

1:05-CV-27S1-RWS

2254 - habeas

administratively closed

6

15

Daker v. Donald

1:05-mi-397

1983 - civil rights

converted to 1:06-CV-54-RWS

2

16

Daker v. Barrett

1:05-mi-398

1983 - civil rights

converted to 1:06-CV-55-RWS

2

17

Daker v. Donald

1:06-CV-54-RWS

full fee paid

1983 - civil rights

dismissed (failure to comply / failure to serve)

24

18

Daker v. Barrett

1:06-CV-55-RWS

full fee paid

1983 - civil rights

dismissed (voluntarily)

35

19

Daker v. Warren

1:10-CV-S52-RWS

full fee paid

2241 - habeas

dismissed without prejudice

29

Yes

denied - See Daker v. Warren, No. 10-15028

Yes

20

Daker v. United States

1:10-CV-1585-RW5

full fee paid

2241 - habeas

dismissed (voluntarily)

7

21

Daker v. Warren

1:10-CV-2084-AT

1983 - civil rights

summary Judgment for defendants

184

Yes

on appeal

22

Daker v. Warren

1:10-CV-381S-RWS

full fee paid

2241 - habeas

dismissed In part; denied in part

79

Yes

denied - See Daker v. Warren. Nos. 12-12820 & 12

13644

Yes

23

Daker v. Warren

1:11-CV-764-RWS

full fee paid

2241 - habeas

consolidated with 1:10-CV-3815-RWS

7

Yes

24

Daker v. Warren

1:11-CV-1401-RWS

2241 - habeas

administratively closed

4

25

Daker v. United States

1:11-CV-1710-RWS

full fee paid

2241 - habeas

dismissed (voluntarily)

11

26

Daker v. Warren

1:11-CV-1711-RWS

full fee paid

2241 - habeas

dismissed without prejudice

57

Yes

on appeal

27

Daker v. Warren

1:11-CV-3580-RWS

full fee paid

2241 - habeas

dismissed without prejudice

53

Yes

on appeal

28

Daker v, Robinson

1:12-CV-118-RWS

1983 - civil rights

dismissed without prejudice

42

Yes

on appeal

29

Daker v, Dawes

1:12-CV-119-RWS

1983 - civil rights

dismissed without prejudice

40

Yes

on appeal

30

Georgia v. Daker

1:12-CV-572-RWS

1443 - removal

denied

18

denied - See Georgia v. Daker, No. 12-12519

31

Daker v. Warren

1:12-CV-1141-RWS

full fee paid

2241 - habeas

dismissed without prejudice

43

Yes

on appeal

32

Daker v. Warren

1:12-CV-1291-RWS

2241 - habeas

consolidated with 1:10-CV-1141-RWS

7

33

Daker v. Unnamed Defend

1:12-CV-1319-RWS

2241 - habeas

dismissed without prejudice

37

Yes

on appeal

34

Daker v. Warren

1:12-CV-2605-RWS

2241 - habeas

dismissed without prejudice

37

Yes

on appeal

35

Daker v. Dawes

1:12-CV-2782-RWS

1983 - civil rights

pending

18

Yes

36

Daker v. Humphrey

1:13-CV-1SS4-RWS

1983 - civil rights

pending

17

Yes

37

Daker v. Warren

1:13-CV-3053-RWS

1983 - civil rights

pending

13


APPENDIX A

Caption

Docket Number

Filing Fee Paid

Cause of Action

Principal Final Outcome

Total

Docket

Entries

Rule

59/60

type

motions

Result on Appeal

cert

denied

Cases Opened In the Middle District of Georgia (through June 3, 2014)

1983 - civil rights

Intervention request denied

107

Yes

denied - See Daker v. Tremble. No, 05-11696 &

voluntarily dismissed - See Daker v. Tremble, No.

05-13697

2

Daker v. Donald

5:D4-CV-337

1983 - civil rights

dismissed (voluntarily)

45

3

Daker v. Donald

5:04 CV-392

1983 - civil rights

dismissed (voluntarily)

29

4

Daker v. GDOC

5:05-CV-205

1983 - civil rights

dismissed (voluntarily)

15

5

Daker v. Owens

5:12-CV-459

IFP denied

1983 - civil rights

dismissed pursuant to Section 1915(g)

160

Yes

dismissed - See Daker v, Comm'r, No. 13-13398 &

Daker v. Comm'r. No. 14-11571; see also Daker v.

Comm'r. No. 14-12139

6

Daker v. Humphrey

5:12-CV-461

2241 - habeas

dismissed

12

Yes

7

Daker v. Head

5:14-CV-138

IFP denied

1983 - civil rights

dismissed pursuant to Section 1915(g)

7

Yes

Cases Opened in the Southern District of Georgia (through June 3, 2014)

1

Daker v. Head

6:14-CV-47

1983 - civil rights

pending

2

Cases Opened in the Central District of California (through June 3, 2014)

1

Daker v. Mokwa

2:14-CV-395

IFP denied

1331 - diversity

dismissed with prejudice (frivolous/malicious)

9

Yes

on appeal

Appeals and Original Actions Opened in the Eleventh Circuit (through June 3, 2014)

1

Daker v. Warren

10-15028

IFP denied

dismissed

Yes

Yes

2

In re; Daker

11-11937

IFP denied

dismissed as fivolous

Yes

3

In re: Daker

12-12072

IFP denied

mandamus petition dismissed as frivolous

Yes

4

In re: Daker

12-12073

IFP denied

dismissed for want of prosecution

Yes

5

In re: Daker

12-12074

IFP denied

dismissed (voluntarily)

Yes

6

Georgia v. Daker

12-12519

IFP denied

dismissed for want of prosecution

7

Daker v. Warren

12-12820

IFP denied

dismissed

Yes

8

Daker v. Sheriff

12-13644

IFP denied

dismissed

Yes

9

In re: Daker

12-14369

IFP denied

mandamus petition dismissed as frivolous

10

Daker v. Warren

13-11630

dismissed as frivolous

Yes

11

Daker v. Comm'r

13-13398

dismissed for want of prosecution

12

Daker v. Warren

13-14446

pending

13

Daker v, Robinson

13-14873

pending (consolidated with 13-14878)

14

Daker v. Dawes

13-14878

pending (consolidated with 13-14873)

15

Daker v. Warren

13-15932

pending

16

Daker v. Warren

13-15936

pending

17

Daker v. Warren

13-15938

pending

18

Daker v. Sheriff

13-15939

pending

19

Daker v. Unnamed

13-15941

pending

20

Daker v. Sheriff

14-10096

pending

21

Daker v, Robinson

14-10779

dismissed

22

Daker v. Dawes

14-10780

dismissed

23

Daker v. Comm'r

14-11571

"three strikes" noted

dismissed for want of prosecution

24

Daker v. Comm'r

14-12139

"three strikes" noted

pending

Appeals Filed In the Ninth Circuit (through June 3, 2014)

1

Daker v. Mokwa

14-55653

IFP denied

pending



Go Back

Comparable Sales

Property Report

General Info

Property ID

R7056 404

DAKER WASEEM

1888 AUSTINS POINTE DR

LAWRENCEVILLE GA 30043-3952

Alternate ID

33237684

Address

1888 AUSTINS POINTE DR

Property Class

Neighborhood

Deed Acres

Residential SFR

7326

0.4400

Value History

Year

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2007

2006

Reason

Notice of

Current

Assessment

Notice of

Current

Assessment

Notice of

Current

Assessment

Notice of

Current

Assessment

Adjusted for

Market

Conditions

Land & Bid

Value Adj

For Mkt

Bid Added,

Updated or

Razed

New Parcel

Land Val

$70,000

$70,000

$70,000

$70,000

$70,000

$90,000

$92,000

$82,800

Imp Val

$328,100

$328,100

$328,100

$328,100

$328,100

$374,900

$470,600

$0

Total Appr

$398,100

$398,100

$398,100

$398,100

$338,100

$464,900

$562,600

$82,800

Land Assd

$28,000

$28,000

$28,000

$28,000

$28,000

$36,000

$36,800

$33,120

Land Use

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Imp Assd

$131,240

$131,240

$131,240

$131,240

$131,240

$149,960

$188,240

$0

Total Assd

$159,240

$159,240

$159,240

$159,240

$159,240

$185,960

$225,040

$33,120

Transfer History

Book

Page

Date

Owner

Grantee

Deed Type Vacant Land Sale Price

49774

852

10/26/2009

WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATIO

DAKER WASEEM

WD

NI

No

$394,900

49517

886

5/5/2009

CHARLES MARIE MICHELLE

WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATIO

WD

NG

No

$277,533

47039

259

9/18/2006

BAINBRIDGE HOMES LLC

CHARLES MARIE MICHELLE

WD

QY

No

$579,429

43219

242

12/31/2005

TULLIS DEVELOPMENTS INC

BAINBRIDGE HOMES LLC

WD

N1

No

$926,100

Attributes

Boor Areas

Exterior Features

Story

Attribute

Detail

Type

2 Story Conventional

Occupancy

Stale family

Roof Structure

Gable-Hip

Roof Cover

Comp sh 240-260#

Heating

Forced hot air

A/C

Central air

Stories

2.0



Address

Type

Grade

Year Buitt

Value

1888 AUSTINS POINTE DR

2 Story Conventional

B

2005

$328,100

Bathrooms

4

Bathrooms (Half)

1

Feature

Fireplace

Feature

Fireplace

Exterior Wall

Brick

Interior Flooring

Base Allowance

Exterior Wall

Brick

Interior Flooring

Base Allowance

Exterior Wall

Brick

Interior Flooring

Base Allowance

Improvements

Improvements do not exist for this account

Land Details

Primary Use

Land Type

Acres

Eff. Frontage

Eff. Depth

R01 - Primary Site

0.44

0

0

Legal Description

Line

Description

1

L6BA AUSTINS POINTE


Terms Of Use Privacy Statement Copyright 2014 by Gwinnett County Assessor's Office

23 Tax Account Parcel ID Property Type Status R7056 404 Real Property Active Mailing Address: DAKERWASEEM 1888 AUSTINS POINTE DR LAWRENCEVILLE , GA 30043-3952 Tax District COUNTY Unincorporated Situs: 1888 AUSTINS POINTE DR Legal Description L6 BA AUSTINS POINTE Tax Values Class Codes 101-Residential SFR Description Market Value Assessed Value Land $70,000.00 $28,000.00 Improvement $328,100.00 $131,240.00 Total $398,100.00 $159,240.00 Assessments Operation Net Tax Savings County Unincorporated Taxes $2,151.34 $0.00 School Taxes $3,152.95 $0.00 STATE OF GEORGIA TAXES $23.89 $0.00 Sub Total $5,328.18 $0.00 Bond Net Tax Savings County Unincorporated Taxes $38.22 $0.00 School Taxes $326.44 $0.00 Sub Total $364.66 $0.00 Special Assessment Net Tax Savings Res Underground Street Lights $39.50 $0.00 Stormwater Service Fee $125.46 $0.00 Solid Waste Service Fee $226.56 $0.00 Sub Total $391.52 $0.00 Total Tax $6,084.36 $0.00 Note: You may click on the individual Authorities to view a detailed breakdown. Tax Installment Information Period Bill Number Due Date Tax Year Tax Penalty/Fee Interest Total Due INST 1 21949900 10/3/2013 2013 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Due: $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 Payment History Tax Year Bill Number Receipt Number Amount Paid Last Paid 2013 21949900 B13.51479 $6,084.36 9/14/2013


Summaries of

In re Daker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Jun 5, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-3580-RWS (N.D. Ga. Jun. 5, 2014)

summarizing Plaintiff's litigation history

Summary of this case from Daker v. Dozier

summarizing Plaintiff's litigation history

Summary of this case from Daker v. Dozier

summarizing Plaintiff's litigation history

Summary of this case from Daker v. Dozier

summarizing Plaintiff's litigation history

Summary of this case from Daker v. United States

summarizing Plaintiff's litigation history

Summary of this case from Daker v. Bryson

summarizing Plaintiff's litigation history

Summary of this case from Daker v. United States
Case details for

In re Daker

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: WASEEM DAKER

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Date published: Jun 5, 2014

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-3580-RWS (N.D. Ga. Jun. 5, 2014)

Citing Cases

Daker v. Ward

(Daker is a “serial litigant who has clogged the federal courts with litigation” by “submitting] over a…

Daker v. United States

This same review also reveals scores of other civil actions and appeals which were dismissed and/or count as…