Waseem Daker v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-13104 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 1 of 8

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13104 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

WASEEM DAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, BRIAN OWENS, Former Commissioner, HOMER BRYSON, Former Commissioner, GREGORY DOZIER, Former Commissioner, JACK KOON, Facilities Director, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 24-13104 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 2 of 8

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13104 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 5:22-cv-00342-TES-TQL ____________________

Before JORDAN, KIDD, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Waseem Daker, proceeding pro se, appeals the Middle District of Georgia’s (“Middle District”) dismissal of his complaint without prejudice under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to comply with the Northern District of Georgia’s (“Northern Dis- trict”) permanent filing injunction against him and its denial of his motion to vacate or reconsider the dismissal order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 1 Daker presents three arguments on appeal: (1) he contends that the Northern District’s filing injunction against him is an impermissible universal injunction and advisory opinion considering the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025); (2) he argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his original complaint for failure to comply with the Northern District’s filing injunction and reject- ing his amended complaint; and (3) he argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate or reconsider its dismissal order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Having reviewed

1 Daker also moves this Court to certify a question of law to the Georgia Su-

preme Court. Because this appeal can be fully resolved without addressing questions of Georgia state law, Daker’s motion to certify is DENIED. USCA11 Case: 24-13104 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 3 of 8

24-13104 Opinion of the Court 3

the record and read Daker’s brief, 2 we affirm the district court’s or- der of dismissal. I. We review questions concerning the district court’s jurisdic- tion de novo. Zakrzewski v. McDonough, 490 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2007). We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s imposition of a filing injunction. Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1095-96 (11th Cir. 2008). “A district court abuses its discretion when its factual findings are clearly erroneous, when it follows im- proper procedures, when it applies the incorrect legal standard, or when it applies the law in an unreasonable or incorrect manner.” Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2016). “Federal courts have both the inherent power and the con- stitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions.” Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc). “The court has a responsibility to prevent single litigants from unneces- sarily encroaching on the judicial machinery needed by others.” Id. at 1074. This protection can come in various forms, including pre- filing injunctions. See Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1387–88 (11th Cir. 1993) (affirming the Southern District of Flor- ida’s dismissal of a case based on the plaintiff’s violation of a per- manent injunction issued by the District of Connecticut). Courts

2 Appellee Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections did not

file a brief. USCA11 Case: 24-13104 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 4 of 8

4 Opinion of the Court 24-13104

also have the authority to dismiss an action for failure to follow court orders under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). In Trump v. CASA, 606 U.S. 831, 145 S. Ct. 2540 (2025), the Supreme Court stayed district court injunctions that barred the government from enforcing, against anyone, a policy defining cir- cumstances in which a person born in the United States would not be recognized as a United States citizen. Id. at 837–39, 145 S. Ct. at 2548-50. The Court held that the government was likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that district courts lacked the author- ity to enter such “universal” injunctions (i.e., those that “prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone”) because the Judici- ary Act of 1789 did not vest district courts with this equitable au- thority. Id. at 837, 841–47, 145 S. Ct. at 2548, 2550-54. The Court stressed that its early decisions, and those of other federal courts, revealed a refusal to grant requests for relief that extended beyond the parties. Id. at 843–44, 145 S. Ct. at 2552-53. But it added that “a traditional, parties-only injunction can apply beyond the juris- diction of the issuing court.” Id. at 837 n.1, 145 S. Ct. at 2548 n.1. It further held that, in fashioning an equitable remedy that affords a plaintiff complete relief, nonparties may incidentally benefit. Id. at 851–52, 145 S. Ct. at 2257. We conclude that the Supreme Court’s decision in CASA does not limit the enforceability of the Northern District’s filing in- junction against Daker. Unlike the universal injunctions at issue in CASA, the filing injunction against Daker does not provide direct USCA11 Case: 24-13104 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 5 of 8

24-13104 Opinion of the Court 5

relief to nonparties. Instead, the injunction merely requires Daker to take specified actions when he files new lawsuits in any federal court. II. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the rules of the court. Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006). We generally review a district court’s denial of leave to amend a pleading for an abuse of discretion, but we review questions of law de novo. Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007). Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may amend his complaint “once as a matter of course no later than: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave,” and “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In determining whether to grant a party’s motion for leave to amend, “a district court may consider several factors such as un- due delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously al- lowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allow- USCA11 Case: 24-13104 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 6 of 8

6 Opinion of the Court 24-13104

ance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Equity Life- style Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (quotation marks omit- ted). An amendment is futile when the complaint as amended would still be subject to dismissal. Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004). A duly filed amended complaint “supersedes the initial complaint and becomes the operative plead- ing in the case.” Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219-20 (11th Cir. 2007). “A district court need not tolerate defiance of reasonable or- ders.” Equity, 556 F.3d at 1241. We will excuse a party’s failure to comply with a court order when the party demonstrates that it was unable to comply with the order after making every reasonable ef- fort to do so. See PlayNation Play Sys., Inc. v. Velex Corp., 939 F.3d 1205, 1213–14 (11th Cir. 2019) (upholding a civil contempt order because the defendant did not take every available reasonable step to comply with an injunction). We have previously remarked that Daker is “a serial litigant who has clogged the federal courts with frivolous litigation by submit[ting] over a thousand pro se filings in over a hundred actions and appeals in at least nine different federal courts.” Daker v. Jackson, 942 F.3d 1252, 1255 (11th Cir. 2019) (al- teration in original) (quotation marks and italics omitted). “[A] dismissal with prejudice, whether on motion or sua sponte, is an extreme sanction that may be properly imposed only when: (1) a party engages in a clear pattern of delay or willful con- USCA11 Case: 24-13104 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 7 of 8

24-13104 Opinion of the Court 7

tempt (contumacious conduct); and (2) the district court specifi- cally finds that lesser sanctions would not suffice.” Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1337–38 (quotation marks and italics omitted). “A dis- missal without prejudice, by contrast, doesn’t require a finding of willfulness or bad faith because its consequences are less severe.” McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2025), petition for cert. filed, No. 25-808 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2026). We conclude from the record that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Daker’s complaint based on the Northern District’s filing injunction. The injunction directed Daker to include, with every lawsuit he files in that court or any other federal court, a copy of the Northern District’s order and a list of all lawsuits Daker has filed in any federal court. The record shows that Daker violated the plain terms of the injunction. Also, the court’s dismissal was without prejudice, and, even accepting Daker’s allegations that prison officials frustrated his ability to com- ply with the injunction, Daker still failed to make every reasonable effort to comply with the injunction’s requirements. We also con- clude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Daker’s amended complaint because his attempt to comply with the injunction only after the magistrate judge found that he had failed to disclose its existence did not excuse his earlier abuse of the judicial process. Thus, we affirm the district court’s order dismiss- ing Daker’s amended complaint without prejudice. III. USCA11 Case: 24-13104 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 8 of 8

8 Opinion of the Court 24-13104

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). MacPhee v. MiMedx Grp., Inc., 73 F.4th 1220, 1238 (11th Cir. 2023). ‘The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and al- teration omitted). The record demonstrates that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Daker’s motion to vacate or recon- sider the dismissal order under Rule 59(e). Daker’s Rule 59(e) mo- tion nor his brief on appeal identify any new evidence or manifest errors of law or fact that undermined the court’s dispositive finding that dismissal was warranted based on his violation of the Northern District’s injunction. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s denial of Daker’s Rule 59(e) motion. IV. Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we af- firm the district court’s order dismissing Daker’s pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, and denying Daker’s motion to vacate or reconsider the dismissal order under Federal Rule of Civil Proce- dure 59(e). AFFIRMED.