[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20

- 13602

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________

WASEEM DAKER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus
GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA, GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, SENTENCE REVIEW PANEL, et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. USCA11 Case: 20-13602 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 1 of 52 Opinion of the Court 20

- 13602

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District o f Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:18

- cv

- 05243

- WMR

____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: This appeal returns to us after remand to give Waseem Daker, a Georgia prisoner

, notice of and an opportunity to respond

to the entry of a filing injunction. Daker v. Governor of Ga

. , 796 F. App ’ x 720 (11th Cir. 2020)

. After allowing Daker to show causewhy the injunction should not be entered, the district court reimposed its order re quir ing Daker to post a contempt bond and to append to all future filings a list of his litigation history . We affirm.

We review the imposition of a filing injunction for abuse of discretion

. Miller v. Donald , 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008).

“ A distr ict court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrectlegal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Klay v. Humana, Inc.

, 382 F.3d 1241, 1251 (11th Cir. 2004)

. Daker is “a serial litigant who has clogged the federal courts with frivolous litigation by submitting over a thousand pro se filings in over a hundred actions and appeals in at least nine different USCA11 Case: 20-13602 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 2 of 520

- 13602 Opinion of the Court 3

federal courts.” Daker v. Jackson , 942 F.3d 1252, 1255 (1 1th Cir. 2019) (quoting Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr. , 820 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2016) ) (internal quotation marks omitted and alterations adopted)

. His litigation stems from his confinement fo r convictions in 1996 for aggravated stalking and in 2012 for malice murder, burglary, false imprisonment, aggravated battery, and attempted aggravated stalking

. Daker years ago accumulated the requisite three strikes to deny hi m the right t o proceed as a paupe r

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) ; Daker , 942 F.3d at 1 256 n.4, 1258

– 59

. But he has devised means to circumvent th at limitation on frivolous filings. To curb Daker’s abusive filings, t he district court permanently enjoined him “ from filing or attempting to file any new lawsuit or petition in [ the ] Court without first posting a $1,500.00 contempt bond in addition to paying the required filing fee

. ” The district court ordered that, “[i]f any of Daker’s future filings is deemed friv olous or duplicative, the presiding judge may impose a contempt sanction against Daker to be paid from the contempt bond” and he would “not be allowed to file any further lawsuits unless and until the contempt bond is replenished to the amount of $1,500.00 .” “I f Daker d oes not file any cases in [the] Court for a one

year period, the Clerk will return the contempt bond funds to Daker ,” but he nonetheless must “ file a $1,500 contempt bond in connection with any [future] cases he file s

. . . . ” The order also require s D aker to “ include with every lawsuit he files in this or any other court ” a copy of the injunction and a list of every “ lawsuit

, USCA11 Case: 20-13602 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 3 of 54 Opinion of the Court 20

- 13602
habeas corpus petition, and appeal that he has filed in any federal court along with [their] final disposition ” or els e face a summary dismiss al

. I n the event that D aker i s “ unable to afford the $1,500.00 contempt bond, he [ can ] move for modification ” so long as his motion include s a “ comprehensive accounting of his assets and [an] affirm [ation] that the accounting is true under penalty of perjury .”

The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering the filing injunction. “ F ederal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from co nduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions

, ” as is the case when “ single litigants . . . unnecessarily encroach[] on the judicial machinery needed by others.” Procup v. Strickland , 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 , 1074 (11th Cir. 1986) ( en ban c )

. As the district court stated , Daker’s “ inability to obtain in forma pauperis status ” ha d

not curbed “his ability to clog the Court’s docket.” Daker eluded th at protective process by “frivolously assert[ing] that his claims qualify under the ‘imminent danger’ exception to § 1915(g) ” or by paying the required filing fee. Requiring Daker to post a bond and provide detailed information about his past litigation is a permissible next step to combat his vexatious litigation. See id. at 1072

– 73 (pro viding a non

- exclusive list of me thod s to curtail abusive prisoner litigation). We have approved similar restrictions. Id. at 1072 (submitting a litigation history with every plead ing); C opeland v.
Green , 949 F.2d 390, 391 (11th Cir. 1991) ( requir ing the c lerk to mark pleadings “received” instead of “filed” until screened by a judge ); Martin

- Trigona v. Shaw , 986 F.2d 1384, 1387

– 88 (11th Cir. USCA11 Case: 20-13602 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 4 of 520

- 13602 Opinion of the Court 5

1993) (permanently enjoining filing s without leave of court and the submission of litigation history). And the district court protect ed Daker’s right to access the courts by providing the means to litigate nonfrivolous issues if he is indigent.

Daker ’ s challenges to the order lack merit. Daker argues that the district co urt lacks jurisdiction to order him to report his litigation history to other courts. But reporting litigation history to other tribunals ensures enforcement of the injunction, which “operate[s] continuously and perpetually upon ” and is “ binding upon [ Dak er ] . . . throughout the United States

. ” Leman v. Krentler

-Arnold Hinge Last Co. , 284 U.S. 448, 451 (1932)

. Daker ’s argu ment that a contempt bond is inappropriate because he has not be en held in contemp t ignores that he has been rebuked repeatedly for abus ive filings and has a record of thwarting lesser efforts to curtail his
vexatious litigation. The district court reasonably decided to “respond [to Daker’s deliberate disobedience of restrictions he knew existed] with imaginative new techniques designed to protect the court access of all litigants” and “to protect itself against the abuses that litigants like [Daker] visit upon it.” Procup , 792 F.2d at 1073. Daker also argues that the injunction violates his constitutional rights, but his right of access to the courts is “neither absolute nor unconditional

, ” Miller , 541 F.3d at 1096 . The district court did not abuse its “[c]onsiderable discretion” by “severely restrict[ing] . . . what [Daker] may file and how he must behave in his applications for judicial relief.” Procup , 792 F.2d at 1074.

We AFFIRM the injunction entered against Daker. USCA11 Case: 20-13602 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 5 of 5