Daker v. Head et al

Filing 388

ORDER ADOPTING and affirming the 343 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as the Order of the Court, overruling Plaintiff's 358 - 359 Objections, and denying 314 - 316 , and 322 Motions. Signed by District Judge R. Stan Baker on 02/28/2022. (jlh)

Case 6:14-cv-00047-RSB-BWC Document 388 Filed 02/28/22 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
WASEEM DAKER,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:14-cv-47

v.
BRIAN OWENS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
November 29, 2021 Report and Recommendation and November 29, 2021 Order.
(Docs. 358, 359.) For the reasons below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections as to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report. (Doc. 358.) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction Regarding Limit on Indigent Mail, Motion for Preliminary Injunction Regarding
Unreasonable Delays in Indigent Mail, Motion for Access to Stored Legal Materials, and Renewed
and Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Docs. 314, 315, 316, 322.) The Magistrate
Judge’s Report is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as the Order of the Court. (Doc. 343.) Finally,
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s November 29, 2021 Order are OVERRULED.
(Doc. 359.)
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed these Motions in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, which is
currently on interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (Docs. 1, 298.) The
only claim pending in this case is Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim against Defendants

Case 6:14-cv-00047-RSB-BWC Document 388 Filed 02/28/22 Page 2 of 8

DeLoach, Owens, Toole, Bailey-Dean, and Jacobs concerning his placement in Tier
II/Segregation. (Doc. 349.)
Plaintiff seeks several preliminary injunctions.

First, Plaintiff seeks preliminary

injunctions related to mail policies at the institution where he is housed and a preliminary
injunction order related to purported unreasonable delays and restrictions on the processing of
indigent mail. (Docs. 314, 315.) Plaintiff contends the current mail policies interfere with his
access to courts and violate his First Amendment rights. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge recommends
the Court deny Plaintiff’s mail-related preliminary injunctions. (Doc. 343, pp. 2–4.) Similarly,
Plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction related to access of his stored legal materials and access
to photocopying. (Docs. 316, 322.) The Magistrate Judge similarly recommends the Court deny
Plaintiff’s Motion for Access to Stored Legal Materials and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction for Photocopying. (Doc. 343, pp. 5–6.)
Finally, the Magistrate Judge addressed Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order.
Defendants moved for an order relieving them of their obligation to respond to any motion or filing
by Plaintiff unless the Court directs them otherwise. (Doc. 317.) Plaintiff opposed the Motion.
(Doc. 321.)

The Magistrate Judge found such a protective order appropriate and granted

Defendants’ Motion. (Doc. 343, pp. 7–8.)
DISCUSSION
I.

Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report recommending the Court

deny his Motions for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 358.) The Court now conducts an independent
and de novo review of the entire record and specifically addresses Plaintiff’s relevant Objections.

2

Case 6:14-cv-00047-RSB-BWC Document 388 Filed 02/28/22 Page 3 of 8

A.

Mail-Related Preliminary Injunction Motions

The Magistrate Judge recommended the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary
Injunctions Regarding Limit on Indigent Mail and Unreasonable Delays in Indigent Mail be
denied. (Docs. 314, 315.) Plaintiff argues the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is erroneous. 1
(Doc. 358, pp. 1–10.)
First, Plaintiff argues the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction to
grant to requested relief because it is an issue on appeal is incorrect. Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal on April 22, 2021. (Doc. 298.) Plaintiff notified the Court he was appealing six of the
Court’s rulings, including the Order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amendment mail-related claims. (Id.) Plaintiff’s opening brief has not yet been filed in the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Daker v. Owens, No. 21-11440, Br. Notice (11th Cir. Dec. 10,
2021). Plaintiff clarifies he is only appealing the Court’s rulings on his motions for preliminary
injunctions. (Doc. 358, p. 2.) As the scope of Plaintiff’s appeal is quite broad and no opening
brief has been filed, it is difficult to determine precisely what is involved in Plaintiff’s appeal, but
Plaintiff has demonstrated his intent to appeal the dismissal of his First Amendment mail-related
claims.
Regardless, the Magistrate Judge also recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s mail-related
Motions because any alleged problems with indigent mailing and mail delays are not related to his
procedural due process claims, the only claim pending in this case. (Doc. 343, p. 3.) Notably,
Plaintiff does not argue his requested injunctive relief is related to his pending claims. Instead,

1

The Magistrate Judge observed Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction related to mail and the First
Amendment claims in his Complaint and Supplemental Complaint related to indigent mailing and postage
are nearly identical. (Doc. 343, p. 2.) Plaintiff notes he moved to reconsider dismissal of his First
Amendment claims. However, the Court has since denied Plaintiff’s motions to reconsider and adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims. (Doc. 349.)

3

Case 6:14-cv-00047-RSB-BWC Document 388 Filed 02/28/22 Page 4 of 8

Plaintiff argues his claims for injunctive relief do not have to be related to his pending claims
because the Court has inherent power to issue the order he requests. (Doc. 358, pp. 2–8.) Plaintiff
points to no authority for this proposition. Nor has he distinguished the Magistrate Judge’s reliance
on binding Eleventh Circuit case law requiring exactly that. (Doc. 343, p. 3 (citing Kaimowitz v.
Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997), opinion amended on other grounds on reh’g, 131 F.3d
950 (11th Cir. 1997)).)
Indeed, relevant case law on the issue makes clear that requests for injunctive relief must
be closely related to the underlying claims. Kaimowitz, 122 F.3d at 43; Bossio v. Bishop, No.
3:16-CV-839, 2018 WL 4375139, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 8, 2018), report and recommendation
adopted, 2018 WL 4374183 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 13, 2018). A preliminary injunction is not an
appropriate vehicle for trying to obtain relief that is not even sought in the underlying action.
See Klay v. United HealthGroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1097–98 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining the
requested injunctive relief must relate in some fashion to the relief requested in the complaint).
Because the requested preliminary injunction is unrelated to Plaintiff’s underlying procedural due
process claim, his Motion is due to be denied. See Bruce v. Reese, 431 F. App’x 805, 806 n.1
(11th Cir. 2011) (affirming a district court’s denial of injunctive relief that was “outside the scope
of the underlying suit” (citation omitted)); Cook-Bey v. Lucie, No. 2:15-cv-307, 2019 WL
1186865 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 19, 2019) (holding a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin
correctional officers from destroying various papers and legal material should not be granted
because the underlying claim the requested relief was not related to the claim in the case); Pullen
v. Brown, No. 3:18-CV-1274, 2019 WL 399570, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2019) (denying a request
for preliminary injunction as to claims that are outside of complaint).

4

Case 6:14-cv-00047-RSB-BWC Document 388 Filed 02/28/22 Page 5 of 8

Plaintiff also complains the Magistrate Judge incorrectly determined his Motion is due to
be denied because Plaintiff has not identified any specific Defendants to enjoin. Plaintiff contends
he need not identify any specific Defendants where several Defendants could have provided the
necessary injunctive relief. (Doc. 358, pp. 8–10.) For the first time, Plaintiff has identified specific
Defendants to enjoin. (Id.). The Court need not consider Plaintiff’s newly raised arguments, as
he failed to present any such argument in his briefing to the Magistrate Judge, particularly given
that Plaintiff’s Motion is due to be denied on other grounds. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d
1287, 1291 (11th Cir.2009) (approving district court’s refusal to consider new argument set forth
in objections where party had opportunity to present such argument to magistrate judge and failed
to do so). Thus, Plaintiff’s failure to identify specific Defendants to enjoin in his original Motion
also provides a basis for denying his Motions.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections on his mail-related Motions
for Preliminary Injunction. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report as the opinion of
this Court and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Limit on Indigent
Mail, Motion for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Unreasonable Delays in Indigent Mail, (docs.
314, 315).
B.

Motion for Access to Stored Legal Materials

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction and asks the Court to enter an order requiring
Defendants to provide him with “readily available access to his stored legal materials.”
(Doc. 316, pp. 5–8; Doc. 337.) The Magistrate Judge recommended the Court deny Plaintiff’s
Motion because it was not of the same character or related to Plaintiff’s pending procedural due
process claim. (Doc. 343, pp. 4–5.) Plaintiff offers the same response as his mail-related
Motions—that this Court should overlook the requirement a motion for preliminary injunction be

5

Case 6:14-cv-00047-RSB-BWC Document 388 Filed 02/28/22 Page 6 of 8

related to underlying claims. Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons set forth
above. 2 Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections on Motion for Access to
Stored Legal Materials. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report as the opinion of this
Court and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Access to Stored Legal Materials, (docs. 322).
C.

Plaintiff’s Renewed and Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Injunction for
Access to Photocopying, Doc. 322

The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s Renewed and Supplemental
Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Access to Photocopying Plaintiff has previously filed five
other similar motions, all of which have been denied and are now at issue on appeal.
(Doc. 343, p. 6.) Plaintiff concedes he appealed these previously denied motions for photocopying
but argues, because the instant Motion is based on different facts, the Court is not divested of
jurisdiction. (Doc. 358, p. 13.) While Plaintiff’s instant Motion and previous Motions are not
identical, they are materially similar. In both, Plaintiff makes the same legal arguments as to why
he should be permitted unlimited access to photocopying, alleging that denial of access to
unfettered photocopying violates his First Amendment rights and that he meets the requirements
of a preliminary injunction. Thus, the Court finds itself divested of jurisdiction to rule on the
merits, despite Plaintiff’s conclusory instance otherwise. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff’s Objections on Motion for Access to Stored Legal Materials. The Court ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report as the opinion of this Court and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Access
to Stored Legal Materials, (doc. 322). 3
2

Plaintiff also takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s characterization of the facts underlying his Motion.
(Doc. 358, pp. 10–11.) As Plaintiff’s dispute of the Magistrate Judge’s description is not material to this
Court’s conclusion, the Court declines to address this issue any further.

3

Plaintiff briefly touches on the Magistrate Judge’s suggestion he move under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26 for photocopying, if he so desires. (Doc. 348, p. 14.) Plaintiff states he has conferred with
Defendants on photocopying and, thus, complied with the Magistrate Judge’s directive and should be
granted relief. However, the Magistrate Judge also directed Plaintiff to file a narrowly tailored motion
6

Case 6:14-cv-00047-RSB-BWC Document 388 Filed 02/28/22 Page 7 of 8

II.

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order
Defendants moved for a protective order, relieving them from responding to Plaintiff’s

motions unless ordered to do so by the Court. (Doc. 317.) The Magistrate Judge granted
Defendants’ Motion based on the Court’s inherent ability to manage its own docket, authority to
change the time for a party to respond to a pending motion, and Plaintiff’s burdensome filings.
(Doc. 342, pp. 6–7.) Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order. (Doc. 359.)
A district judge must consider a party’s objections to a magistrate judge’s order on a pretrial
matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). However, the district judge may
modify or set aside that order, and reconsider the pretrial matter, only “where it has been shown
that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge’s Order permits Defendants “and their employees
and agents” to retaliate against Plaintiff in this case, as well as other cases, such as Daker v. Bland,
6:20-cv-90 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 15, 2020). (Doc. 359, pp. 1–4.) Plaintiff does not explain how the
Magistrate Judge’s Order will permit Defendants to retaliate against him, as Plaintiff is still
permitted to file with the Court. Further, much of the purported “retaliation” Plaintiff complains
of concerns his other case, Daker v. Bland, and individuals who are not parties to this case. Finally,
the Court can address any allegations of retaliation as they occur and determine if Defendants need
to respond. Indeed, Plaintiff’s alleged harm flowing from the Magistrate Judge’s Order is nothing
more than conclusory conjecture. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to show the Magistrate Judge’s Order

under Rule 26 explaining what he needs copied and why. (Doc. 343, p. 6 n.3.) Plaintiff has not filed any
such motion under Rule 26, let alone one complying with the Magistrate Judge’s directives. Thus, the
Court declines to grant him any relief under Rule 26 at this time.

7

Case 6:14-cv-00047-RSB-BWC Document 388 Filed 02/28/22 Page 8 of 8

is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s

Objections. (Doc. 359.) The Court’s November 29, 2021 Order remains the Order of the Court.
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections as to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report. (Doc. 358.) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction Regarding Limit on Indigent Mail, Motion for Preliminary Injunction Regarding
Unreasonable Delays in Indigent Mail, Motion for Access to Stored Legal Materials, and Renewed
and Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Docs. 314, 315, 316, 322.) The Magistrate
Judge’s Report is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as the Order of the Court. (Doc. 343.) Finally,
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s November 29, 2021 Order are OVERRULED.
(Doc. 359.)
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of February, 2022.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

8