Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Daker v. Allen

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division

December 6, 2017

WASEEM DAKER, Plaintiff,
v.
MARTY ALLEN, et al., individually and in their official capacities, Defendants.

          ORDER

          J. RANDAE HALL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated September 18, 2017, (doc. 30), and nine (9) other pleadings Plaintiff has filed since the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation. (Docs. 37, 32-36, 38-41.) In this action, the Court has provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to amend his Complaint to state related claims against related Defendants and instructions regarding how to prosecute his claims within the confines of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and pertinent precedent. Rather than take advantage of that opportunity, Plaintiff has continued to disregard the Court's directives throughout his pleadings. For instance, in his most recent pleading, Plaintiff seeks to assert more unrelated claims, and he names Defendants that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia already dismissed before that court transferred this case to this District.

         Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections, (doc. 37), and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's September 18, 2017, Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs Complaint, DISMISSES as moot Plaintiffs Motions which were pending at the time the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation, (docs. 7, 8, 10, 11-15), and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. The Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

         Additionally, the Court LIFTS the stay imposed by Order dated September 18, 2017. The Court further: GRANTS in part, DENIES in part, and DISMISSES as moot in part Plaintiffs "Miscellaneous" Motion, (doc. 32); DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, (doc. 33); OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections to the August 14, 2017, Order, (doc. 34); DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Stay and Motion for Access to Case Authorities, (docs. 35, 36); OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections to the July 20, 2017, Order, (doc. 38); DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel, (doc. 39); DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and to Subpoena Plaintiffs Medical Records, (doc. 40); and DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Exceed the Ten-Page Limit on Amended Complaint, (doc. 41).

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff brings his Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l, et seq., ("RLUIPA"). In his Complaint, Plaintiff lays out a number of claims regarding the conditions of his imprisonment at Georgia State Prison.

         First, he generally alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights and the RLUIPA. Plaintiff asserts he is an adherent to the Islamic religion, and "Defendants' policies and customs" are leading to the denial of his participation in religious celebrations and feasts, access to other religious components, and forced compliance with shaving procedures, which includes exposure to unsanitary clippers. (Doc. 1, pp. 11, 17-18.)

         Plaintiff additionally contends "Defendants" placed him in the Tier II program in April 2016 without providing advanced notice or an opportunity to present testimony or evidence against his placement, in violation of due process. (Id. at pp. 14-15.) Plaintiff also contends that the Tier II program consists of three (3) different phases, that he was placed in these different phases as recently as November 29, 2016, and that he was denied due process protections each time. (Id. at pp. 14-16.)

         Moreover, Plaintiff maintains he has been diagnosed with allergy and sinus problems and is on medication for these problems. Plaintiff states he has been suffering with ongoing toothaches and pains. (Id. at p. 20.) However, Plaintiff asserts "Defendants" deny inmates in the Tier II program and those inmates who are indigent Sensodyne toothpaste, which Defendant Geiger instructed Plaintiff to use. (Id.)

         Plaintiff also filed Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and several other Motions. (Docs. 2, 7-8, 10-15, 16.) The District Court for the Middle District of Georgia transferred Plaintiffs case to this Court after conducting a review of Plaintiff s Complaint and dismissing Plaintiffs claims against any Defendant residing within the Middle District of Georgia. (Doc. 17.)

         This Court deferred ruling on Plaintiffs Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and the numerous other Motions Plaintiff filed by Order dated July 20, 2017. (Doc. 21.) In that same Order, the Court deferred its requisite frivolity review of Plaintiffs Complaint. The Court directed Plaintiff to amend his Complaint and to submit the appropriate form on which to move to proceed in forma pauperis within fourteen (14) days of that Order. (Id. at p. 2.) The Court advised Plaintiff his claims were not related to each other and that he must set forth allegations in his Amended Complaint indicating that his constitutional and/or statutory rights had been violated and by whom those rights had been violated. (Id. at p. 6.) In this regard, the Court provided Plaintiff with specific instructions as to how he should amend his Complaint. (Id. at pp. 6-7.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to file an appropriate Amended Complaint "could result in the dismissal of his cause of action for failure to follow this Court's Order." (Id. at p. 7 (emphasis in original).)

         While Plaintiff did file a proper and timely third Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (doc. 23), he also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Comply, Object, or Move to Reconsider this Court's July 20, 2017, Order. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff sought an extension of time until September 6, 2017, to comply with this Court's directive to file an appropriate Amended Complaint. According to Plaintiff, he intended to file an Amended Complaint, but he could not access the law library to research the claims, the proper Defendants, and the facts he needed to assert in his Amended Complaint. (Id. at p. 2.) This Court granted Plaintiffs Motion in part and allowed Plaintiff up to and including August 28, 2017, to file any desired response to the Court's July 20, 2017, Order. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff was forewarned "that the Court will not grant any additional motions for extension of time to respond he may file." (Id. at p. 1.)

         Nevertheless, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion for Extension of Time to Comply, Object, or Move to Reconsider on August 30, 2017. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff asserted he had surgery on his wrist on August 8, 2017, and was unable to "do any lengthy writing/typing" until he recovers from his surgery. Plaintiff estimated his recovery would take four to eight (4-8) weeks' time. (Id. at p. 1.) Plaintiff requested an extension of time until October 6, 2017, to respond to the Court's July 20, 2017, Order. (Id. at pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to the August 14, 2017, Order and a Motion for Reconsideration of this same Order. (Docs. 28, 29.) The Magistrate Judge denied these Motions, as well as Plaintiffs Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 30.)

         In so doing, the Magistrate Judge noted Plaintiffs reason for requesting a second extension to respond to the July 20, 2017, Order was because he had wrist surgery and could not write any pleading that would be lengthy.[1] (Id. at p. 9.) However, the Court's instructions to Plaintiff for the filing of an appropriate Amended Complaint only allowed for Plaintiff to add no more than ten (10) pages to the form Complaint. In addition, the Magistrate Judge took judicial notice that, in at least one other cause of action Plaintiff initiated in this Court, he filed seven (7) pleadings or documents on August 11, 2017, or later, and those documents combined for fifteen (15) pages of substantive content. (Id. (citing Daker v. Allen, 6:17-cv-23 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 11-30, 2017), ECF Nos. 33-39).) The Magistrate Judge found Plaintiffs proffered reason for needing an additional extension of time to respond to this Court's July 20, 2017, Order less than credible, especially in light of Plaintiff having provided a different reason for his need for an extension of time to respond to the Court's Order.

         In addition to his Objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has now filed the following Motions and pleadings: 1) Motion for Copy of July 20, 2017, Order and Copies of Civil Rights Complaint form, for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint and Objections to the July 20, 2017, Order, Motion to Reconsider the July 20, 2017, Order, and Motion to Compel Copies, (doc. 32); 2) Motion for Reconsideration of the August 14, 2017, Order, (doc. 33); 3) Objection to the August 14, 2017, Order, (doc. 34); 4) Motion to Stay Time to Object to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the September 18, 2017, Order, (doc. 35); 5) Motion for Access to Case Authorities, (doc. 36); 6) "Objection to Order on Motion to Vacate", (doc. 38); 7) Motion to Appoint Counsel, (doc. 39); 8) Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and to Subpoena Plaintiffs Medical Records, (doc. 40); and 9) Motion for Permission to Exceed the Ten-Page Limit on Amended ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.