Daker v. Head et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Recusal; denying 29 Motion to Stay; denying 31 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 11/25/2014. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
WASEEM DAKER,
Plaintiff,
V

6: 14-cv-47

.

PATRICK HEAD; JESSE D. EVANS;
MARY E. STALEY; BRIAN OWENS;
TIMOTHY WARD; RANDY TILLMAN;
RICK JACOBS; ROBERT E. JONES;
CARL HUMPHREY; DR. SHARON
LEWIS; SHEVONDAH FIELDS; LISA
FOUNTAIN; TORIS MCLESSIA
ROZIER; JAMES DEMETRIUS
SMITH; GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; ROBERT TOOLE;
WENDELL FOWLER; JOHN PAUL;
Ms. JULGORE; Mr. DELOACH;
MILTON SMITH; MURIEL JACKSON;
JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; DR JOHN
DOE; DR. JANE DOE; Ms. KING; P.
MURPHY; Off. HENRY; Ms. BROWN;
THREE JOHN DOES; BRUCE
CHATMAN; JUNE BISHOP; DR. DEAN
BROOME; Mr. CARAVELLO;
WILLIAM McNUNN; STEPHEN
NICOLOV; SHARON BROWN; Ms.
LIGHTSEY; Ms. CROWDER; Ms.
STRICKLAND; Ms. DOBBS; Ms.
SICVERS; Ms. COWART; Ms. BRADY;
TIFFANY WOOTEN; Mr.
THURMOND; DEBBIE KING; Major
SMITH; Sgt. SALGADO; RONNIE
SHUEMAKE; TARAL TODMAN;
BENJAMIN WARREN; AS WON
CAULEY; FREDDIE DAVIS; JAMES
McMILLAN; MICHAEL NUPEN;
TORJKA NASH; LESLEY MEDLOCK;
and SARAH BARBER,
Defendants.

ORDER
Waseem Daker has filed several motions
with the Court. ECF Nos. 28, 29, 31. Daker
previously filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. ECF No. 1. That complaint was
dismissed, in part because he did not qualify
for an exception from the three strikes rule.
ECF No. 13 at 4-5.
I.

MOTION TO RECUSE

Daker first seeks recusal of Judge B.
Avant Edenfield from this case. ECF No.
28. "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge
of the United States shall disqualify himself
in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C.
As implied in the statute,
§ 455(a).
"[j]udges routinely preside over motions for
their own recusal." In re Evergreen Sec.,
Ltd., 570 F.3d 1257, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009).
Therefore, the Court will rule on Daker's
Motion.
"Ordinarily, a judge's rulings in the
same or a related case may not serve as the
basis for a recusal motion." McWhorter v.
City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678
(11th Cir. 1990). "J]udicial rulings alone
almost never constitute a valid basis for a
bias or partiality motion." Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). In fact, a
judge's rulings "do not constitute a basis for
a bias or partiality motion unless they
display a deep-seated favoritism or
antagonism that would make fair judgment
impossible." Id.
This disqualifying bias
"must be personal and extrajudicial; it must
derive from something other than that which
the judge learned by participating in the
case." McWhorter, 906 F.2d at 678. Unless
the moving party "demonstrates pervasive

=

Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th
Cir. 2005). Because Daker's motion offers
no new argument in support of altering the
Court's judgment, the Court DENIES his
Rule 59(e) Motion, ECF No. 31.

bias and prejudice," the judge will not
disqualify himself. Id. (quotation omitted).
Although citing several cases relating to
recusal, Daker cites no improper action of
the Court apart from failing to rule in his
favor. His allegations of bias stem merely
from disagreement with the rulings of the
Court. "The alleged bias is thus judicial
rather than personal in nature." See id
Because judicial opinions are insufficient to
provide a basis for recusal, such a remedy is
unwarranted here.

III.

MOTION TO STAY

Daker also filed a Motion to Stay
Proceedings with the Court, requesting that
the case be stayed until a determination is
made by the Eleventh Circuit. ECF No. 29
at 1. A determination has been made by the
Eleventh Circuit, dismissing this case for
lack of prosecution. ECF No. 32. Because
the appeal has been dismissed, Daker's
Motion to Stay, ECF No. 29, is DENIED.

Therefore, the Court DENIES Daker's
Motion, ECF No. 28.
II. MOTION TO VACATE THE
JUDGMENT

IV.

Daker has also filed a Rule 59(e) Motion
with the Court, seeking to have the judgment
vacated. ECF No. 31. Daker previously
moved the Court to amend its judgment
under the same rule, ECF No. 23, and the
Court denied his motion because "he ha[d]
offered no new argument in support of
altering the Court's judgment," ECF No. 25,
Here, Daker has still failed to provide
any new argument or evidence to the Court.
Each argument Daker presents in this
Motion was made previously when he
objected to the magistrate judge's Report
and Recommendation. See ECF No. 16.
Indeed, he repeats many of the paragraphs,
as well as pages eighteen through twentyfour verbatim. See ECF Nos. 31 at 18-24;
16 at 16-22. A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be
used "to relitigate old matters, raise
argument[,] or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment." Michael Linet, Inc. v. Viii. of

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES each of the above
motions brought by Daker in this matter,
ECF Nos. 28, 29, 31.

This,q-4 day of November 2014.

B. AVANT EDENFIELD, DGE
UNITED STATES DIST1CT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2