Daker v. Robinson et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying 21 Rule 59(e) Motion to Vacate 9/12/13 Order and Judgment and 22 Rule 59(e) Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story and Motion to Vacate 9/12/13 Order and Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 1/16/2014. (anc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
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
CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:12-CV-118-RWS

____________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS
42 U.S.C. § 1983
CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:12-CV-119-RWS

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

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

“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].1
1

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);
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

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

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.”
3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

over Daker’s state murder trial.2 See [-118 Doc. 22 at ¶¶10-13; -119 Doc. 22 at ¶¶1013]. Daker, however, offers no evidence to backup this bare allegation.
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.

2

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.
4

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

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.
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of January, 2014.

_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)