Daker v. Robinson et al
| Waseem Daker |
| John Robinson, J. Simpson, Gary D. George and City of Alpharetta |
| 1:2012cv00118 |
| January 11, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
| Atlanta Office |
| Cobb |
| Richard W. Story |
| E. Clayton Scofield |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
43
ORDER denying Daker's 32 Motion to Reconsider Court's 1/16/2014 Order and 42 Supplemental Motion to Reconsider Court's 1/16/2014 Order. First, the Court's January 16 Order denied Daker's previous Rule 59(e) Motions to V acate, and this Court's Local Rules prohibit motions to reconsider motions to reconsider. See LR 7.2E, NDGa. Second, the footnote in the January 16 Order that Daker demands be reconsidered and vacated deals with Daker's "strikes" in prior cases and appeals. As discussed above, the Eleventh Circuit, this Court, and the Middle District of Georgia have all concluded that Daker has accumulated more than three "strikes." Third, there are only two grounds for granting a m otion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e): '''newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.'" Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (l1th Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 11 16, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999)). Here, Daker has neither presented any new evidence, nor identified any manifest error. Rather, Daker is simply seeking to "relitigate old matters, raise argument, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment," none of which is a basis for relief in a Rule 59(e) motion. Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla. 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). Daker's "Request for Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" on appeal 38 and "Request for Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" on appeal 40 are DENIED because he is ineligible to proceed IFP in new appeals now that he has accumulated more than three strikes, unless he can show that he is "under imminent danger of serious physical harm," which he has not attempted to do in this case, and because, as discussed above, it does not appear that Daker is actually indigent. Once again, Daker is reminded that this Court's Lo cal Rules prohibit the filing of motions for reconsideration as a matter of routine practice and prohibit altogether the filing of "motions to reconsider the court's denial of a prior motion for reconsideration." LR 7.2E, NDGa. If Dake r nonetheless seeks reconsideration of this Order and/or files any new requests to proceed IFP in this Court, he is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in those motions or requests why this Court should not exercise its "discretion to deny or revoke th[e] pri vilege [to proceed IFP]..., either retrospectively or prospectively, by looking to 'the number, content, frequency, and disposition of his previous filings."" Hurt v. SSA, 544 F.3d 308,310 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Butler v. DOJ, 492 F .3d 440,445 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). In light of Daker's more than seventy prior cases and appeals, it may be appropriate for the Court to now exercise its "more general supervisory authority to manage [its] docket so as to promote[] the interes ts of justice,"" and to limit the waste of judicial resources by prisoners "'for whom litigation [is] a costless pastime.'" Butler, 492 F.3d at 444-45 (quoting In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989), and Ibrahim v. Dis trict of Columbia, 208 F.3d 1032, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). See also In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 180 (1991) (denying IFP status to a frequent filer in an extraordinary writ case and noting that he might be similarly restricted from filing IFP in other cases if he abused the privilege). Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 6/5/2014. (cem)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER denying 21 Rule 59(e) Motion to Vacate 9/12/13 Order and Judgment and 22 Rule 59(e) Motion to Recuse Judge Richard W. Story and Motion to Vacate 9/12/13 Order and Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 1/16/2014. (anc)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER approving and adopting the 11 Final Report and Recommendation as its Order and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 1 Complaint pursuant to Local Rule 41.3A(2). The Court DENIES Daker's 17 Motion for Consideration of Motion for Reconsideration of IFP Status, as the motion for reconsideration referred to therein was previously denied. Daker is reminded that this Court's Local Rules prohibit the filing of motions for reconsideration as a matter of routine practice and prohibit altogether the filing of motions to reconsider the courts denial of a prior motion for reconsideration. Local Rule 7.2E, NDGa. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 9/12/2013. (cem)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Georgia Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
