NOLLEY v. MCLAUGHLIN et al
ORDER adopting 109 Report and Recommendations and denying 84 Motion to Intervene. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 8/15/2017 (lap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CYNTHIA NELSON, et al.,
ORDER ON RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 109] to deny Waseem Daker’s Motion to Intervene in this
action. Daker has timely filed an Objection [Doc. 110] to the Recommendation. Having
considered the Recommendation and Objection pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
Court finds Daker’s Objection fails to overcome the finding that his Motion should be
denied because he cannot use intervention as a means to bypass the requirements of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), he does not have a right to intervene, and he is
not entitled to permissive intervention.
Even assuming his Motion is timely, and despite his contentions otherwise,
Daker has no right to intervene, and he is not entitled to permissive intervention. The
Magistrate Judge correctly determined Daker does not have an interest in Plaintiff’s
disciplinary hearing claim, as the claims concern different transactions and issues.
Daker also has no direct interest in Plaintiff’s two amended claims because (1) Daker is
confined at a different prison and different Tier II than Plaintiff; (2) the initial
confinement in Tier II that Daker contends violated his due process was a different
transaction than Plaintiff’s initial confinement; and (3) with the exception of one
Defendant, Defendants in Plaintiff’s case were not involved in Daker’s alleged initial
confinement or continued confinement.
Furthermore, as explained in the Recommendation, the PLRA supersedes any
possible right an intervenor would have for permissive intervention or intervention as
of right. Daker has accrued more than three “strikes,” and thus, he must pay the full
filing fee at the time he initiates suit.1 Daker cannot use the intervention provisions of
Rule 24 to circumvent the restrictions of the PLRA. Even if Rule 24 would allow Daker
to permissibly intervene or intervene as of right, the PLRA requirement overrides Rule
24, and thus bars Daker’s intervention.2 The Court is unpersuaded by Daker’s
arguments that Hubbard is not applicable in this case.
Therefore, after reviewing these matters de novo, the Court agrees with the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Recommendation
[Doc. 109] is hereby ADOPTED and MADE THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Daker’s
Motion to Intervene [Doc. 84] is DENIED.
1 Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001).
2 Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001).
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of August, 2017.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?