Daker v. Head et al

Filing 90

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that the Court DENY Plaintiff's Motions for injunctive relief re: 72 - 74 , 78 , 80 - 81 , 83 and 86 . It is also RECOMMENDED that the Court sever Plaintiff's claims for declara tory and injunctive relief and TRANSFER those claims to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation is ordered to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. (Objections to R&R due by 3/13/2019). ORDER directing service of the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Benjamin W. Cheesbro on 2/27/2019. (csr)

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.
PATRICK HEAD, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff has filed several Motions requesting injunctive relief and/or temporary
restraining orders. Specifically, Plaintiff requests the Court enjoin Defendants from forcibly
shaving his beard, docs. 72, 78, require Defendants to provide him with law library access, docs.
74, 80, 83, 86, and access to photocopying, docs. 73, 81. Plaintiff also has filed three Motions
to expedite proceedings. Docs. 84, 85, 89.
The Court turns first to Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against Defendants. The
Court begins by noting that Plaintiff was transferred to Macon State Prison on April 19, 2018.
Doc. 78 at 3. Plaintiff was transferred again and is currently incarcerated in Valdosta State
Prison. Doc. 87. Plaintiff is, therefore, currently not incarcerated within this District, but
rather in the Middle District of Georgia. 28 U.S.C. § 90. Plaintiff has not stated any
expectation that he will be transferred back to this District in the future.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy,” and requires a
plaintiff to establish four elements, among them “a substantial threat of irreparable injury”.
Keister v. Bell, 879 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). There are more than
30 Defendants named in this action, and the Complaint indicates that most of these Defendants

are residents of the Southern District of Georgia. Doc. 1. Plaintiff does not indicate in his
Motions from which Defendants he seeks injunctive relief. Rather, Plaintiff requests that the
Court issue an order enjoining “Defendants” generally. To the extent Plaintiff requests
injunctive relief from Defendants who reside in the Southern District of Georgia, he is not
currently entitled to it. Because Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Middle District of Georgia, any
Defendant who is a resident of the Southern District cannot pose “a substantial threat of
irreparable injury” to him.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief from the Georgia Department of Corrections
or any other Defendant who may be a resident of the Middle District of Georgia, even if the
Court retains personal jurisdiction over these Defendants, this Court is not the most convenient
venue for Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief. Plaintiff requests the Court enjoin officials at
Valdosta State Prison from violating his rights. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are more
properly heard before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 permits the Court to “sever any claim against a
party.” The Court may also “transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it
might have been brought” if that venue is more convenient or better serves the interest of justice.
28 U.S.C. §1404. Accordingly, I RECOMMEND the Court DENY Plaintiff’s Motions for
injunctive relief. Docs. 72, 73, 74, 78, 80, 81, 83, 86. I also RECOMMEND the Court sever
Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and TRANSFER those claims to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Of course, though Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are more properly heard in the
Middle District, Plaintiff may proceed on his claims for damages for the alleged constitutional
violations he suffered in this District. Some of Plaintiff’s claims remain pending before this

2

Court, and Plaintiff has filed three Motions to expedite the Court’s review of these claims under
28 U.S.C. § 1915. Docs. 84, 85, 89. To the extent Plaintiff moves the Court to expedite
proceedings based on “imminent danger of serious physical injury”, doc. 84, the Court DENIES
his Motions. As discussed above, Plaintiff may pursue injunctive relief from the Middle District
of Georgia. However, the Court will review the relative merits of Plaintiff’s claims in the
regular course of business.
For the foregoing reasons, I RECOMMEND the Court DENY Plaintiff’s Motions for
Injunctive Relief and TRANSFER his claims for prospective relief to the Middle District of
Georgia. Docs. 72, 73, 74, 78, 80, 81, 83, 86. I also DENY Plaintiff’s Motions to Expedite
Proceedings. Docs. 84, 85, 89.
SO ORDERED, this 27th day of February, 2019.

____________________________________
BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3