[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-13598

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

WASEEM DAKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

REDFIN CORPORATION INC,

a State of Washington corporation,

Defendant-Appellee,

KELLEY SWEET, et al.,

USCA11 Case: 20-13598 Date Filed: 11/10/2021 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 20-13598

Defendants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-02561-WMR

____________________

Before BRANCH, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Waseem Daker, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his original and amended complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the district court’s 

dismissal of his motions for access to authorities and copies of judicially-noticed records as moot. Daker argues that the district court 

erred by dismissing his amended complaint because, although he 

did not sign his amended complaint, he signed an attached perjury 

declaration. Daker further contends that complete diversity existed as to himself and Redfin Corporation, Inc., because, regardless 

of whether he was domiciled in Florida or Georgia, Redfin was 

domiciled in Washington. Lastly, Daker also raises arguments regarding the district court’s dismissal of his original complaint, but, 

as explained below, we need not consider those arguments as the 

USCA11 Case: 20-13598 Date Filed: 11/10/2021 Page: 2 of 5
20-13598 Opinion of the Court 3

operative pleading before the district court was the amended complaint. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint 

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Center v. Sec'y, Dep't of 

Homeland Sec., 895 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2018). Pro se filings 

are construed more liberally than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990). 

II. ANALYSIS 

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing federal subject 

matter jurisdiction. Williams v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, 839 

F.3d 1312, 1314 (11th Cir. 2016). “If the plaintiff fails to shoulder 

that burden, the case must be dismissed. Id. Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction and generally only can hear actions that involve a federal question or meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331–32; Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 

1367 (11th Cir. 1994). A district court has diversity jurisdiction over 

an action if: (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and (2) 

the controversy is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a)(1). A corporation is considered a citizen of the state in 

which it is incorporated or has its principal place of business. Taylor, 30 F.3d at 1367. 

We address Daker’s first argument that the district court 

erred by dismissing his amended complaint because, although he 

did not sign his amended complaint, he signed an attached perjury 

USCA11 Case: 20-13598 Date Filed: 11/10/2021 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 20-13598

declaration. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), every 

pleading or written motion must be signed by the party personally 

if the party is unrepresented. The district court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being 

called to the party’s attention. Id. The purpose of Rule 11 is to 

subject the signing party to sanctions for inappropriate filings. 

Didie v. Howes, 988 F.2d 1097, 1104 (11th Cir. 1993). 

Here, Daker, a pro se litigant, by signing the perjury declaration attached to his amended complaint accomplished the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We therefore

hold that the district court erred in determining that Daker’s

amended complaint was not properly before the district court. See 

Lennon, 914 F.2d at 1463; see Didie, 988 F.2d at 1104. 

Turning to the second issue, we conclude that the district 

court also erred in dismissing Daker’s amended complaint on this 

ground. First, a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of 

course within 21 days after serving it, or, if the pleading is one to 

which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a 

responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). A complaint is a 

pleading to which a responsive pleading is required. Williams v. 

Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1291-92 (11th 

Cir. 2007). “As a general mater, an amended pleading supersedes 

the original pleading; the original pleading is abandoned by the 

amendment and is no longer part of the plaintiff’s averments 

against the defendant.” Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 

501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007). “If the case has more than one 

USCA11 Case: 20-13598 Date Filed: 11/10/2021 Page: 4 of 5
20-13598 Opinion of the Court 5

defendant and not all have filed responsive pleadings, the plaintiff 

may amend the complaint as a matter of course with regard to 

those defendants that have yet to answer.” Williams, 477 F.3d at 

1291. Here, the defendants listed in Daker’s original complaint 

never served Daker a responsive pleading, so he was free to amend 

his original complaint at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

The operative pleading was therefore the amended complaint. Daker did not include the individual defendants in his 

amended complaint, only Redfin. Thus, it was irrelevant whether 

Daker was domiciled in Florida or Georgia for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction as Redfin was domiciled in Washington. Because complete diversity existed between Daker and Redfin, the 

district court erred by dismissing his amended complaint for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. See Taylor, 30 F.3d at 1367. 

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of 

Daker’s amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1 

VACATED AND REMANDED.

1 Because Daker’s amended complaint superseded his original complaint, we need not address any of the issues raised by Daker regarding the 

original complaint. 

USCA11 Case: 20-13598 Date Filed: 11/10/2021 Page: 5 of 5