[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21

- 11055
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
WASEEM DAKER,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus NEIL WARREN, Sheriff, Cobb County, COBB COUNTY, LAWSON, Mailroom Officer, LT. COL. JANET PRINCE, Cobb County Sheriff Office, JAY C. STEPHENSON, Clerk, et al., USCA11 Case: 21-11055 Date Filed: 08/03/2022 Page: 1 of 52 Opinion of the Court 21

- 11055

Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Nort hern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:13

- cv

- 03053

- WMR

____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Waseem Daker, a Georgia prisoner , appeals pro se the dismissal of his amended complaint against state court and prison officials
, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , for failure to state a claim and qualified immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Daker alleged that the Clerk and a deputy clerk of the Cobb County Superior Court denied him access to the courts by mishandl ing his notice of appeal and that officials at the Cobb County Adult Detention Center denied him access to court by providing insufficient materials in its law library

. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

. He also alleged that mailroom workers caus ed him to miss a filing deadline by tardily processing his second notice of appeal

. And Daker asks that we certify questions to the Georgia Supreme Court. We affirm the dismissal of Daker’s amended complaint, and we deny his motion f o r certif ication

. USCA11 Case: 21-11055 Date Filed: 08/03/2022 Page: 2 of 521

- 11055 Opinion of the Court 3

We review de novo the dismissal of Daker’s complaint. See Leal v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr. , 254 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001) ( dismiss ing sua sponte under 28 U.S.C . § 1915A); Paez v. Mulvey
, 915 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2019) (dismissing based on qualified immunity)

. We accept the allegations in Daker’s complaint as true and construe them in his favor. See Leal , 254 F.3d at 1279 ; Paez , 915 F.3d at 1284

. The district court did not err by sua sponte dismissing Daker’s c omplaint s against court officials and officials at the detention center

. Federal law requires d istrict courts to screen civil complaints filed by prisoners against government officials for frivolity

. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dak er’s allegations that the Clerk and deputy clerk “did not file [his first ] notice of appeal, but instead, forwarded it (unfiled) to the Senior Judge’s office[,]” f ailed to support a plausible inference th at the officials acted deliberately to deny Daker access to court. See Daniels v. Williams , 474 U.S. 327, 333 (1986) ; Williams v. Wood , 612 F.2d 982, 986 (5th Cir. 1980)

. And t he Georgia Supreme Court dismissed Daker’s first notice of appeal because the order he challen ged

— denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis

— was not reviewable, not because he filed an incorrect pleading , which he blamed on inadequate legal material s in the law library

. The district court also did not err by dismissing Daker’s claim against mailroom worker s based on qualified immunity. The workers act ed within their d iscretionary authority when they process ed Daker ’s mail. See Paez , 915 F.3d at 1284

. And the mailroom USCA11 Case: 21-11055 Date Filed: 08/03/2022 Page: 3 of 54 Opinion of the Court 21

- 11055 workers would not have known that delaying the delivery of Daker’s second notice of appeal by one day would violate his right

t o access the Georgia Supreme Court

. See id. (repeating that an official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the “unlawfulness of [his] conduct was ‘clearly established at the time’”)

. Daker deposited his second notice in the mailroom on Thursday, May 26, 2011, where it remaine d on Friday
, a furlough day
, and on Monday
, Memorial Day, and after processing on Tuesday, the workers delivered the second notice to the court on Wednesday. Daker’s second notice was filed one day late
, but t he workers reasonably could have thought the notice would be timely based on the mailbox rule. See Roberts v. Cooper
, 691 S.E.2d 875 ( Ga. 2010) (discussing the mailbox rule)

. T he workers w ould not have necessarily known that the Georgia Supreme Court would dismiss Daker’s second notice of appeal as untimely. Daker fails to identify an issue warranting certification. We may certify questions to the Georgia Supreme Court when there are questions of state law that “are deter minative of the case and there are no clear controlling precedents ” governing those questions

. See O.C.G.A. § 15

- 2

- 9(a). Daker seeks certification to address whether the C le rk properly performed his duty by forwarding Daker’s notice of appeal to the judge; whether the judge sanctioned the Clerk’s conduct by failing to a ct on the notice ; whether the Georgia Supreme Court would have entertained his appeal h ad he filed a different pleading; and whether the Georgia Supreme Court USCA11 Case: 21-11055 Date Filed: 08/03/2022 Page: 4 of 521

- 11055 Opinion of the Court 5 would have given him relief. N one of the issu es Daker identifies

a re determinative of his case.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Daker’s amended complaint. And w e DENY his motion to certify questions to the Georgia Supreme Court. USCA11 Case: 21-11055 Date Filed: 08/03/2022 Page: 5 of 5