Opinion ID: 4644054
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Other Litigation: Daker I and Daker III

Text: To analyze the claims in this case, we must first take note of Daker’s other ongoing litigation. Before the instant case, Daker brought an action in the Middle District against many of the same defendants named in this suit. See Daker v. Owens, No. 5:12-cv-00459-CAR-MSH (M.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2012) (“Daker I”). After an initial screening of that case, the district court ordered, and a magistrate judge reminded, Daker to file an amended complaint that included only three surviving claims. When Daker expressed concern at a hearing before a magistrate judge that this limitation would result in waiver of his other claims, the magistrate 4 USCA11 Case: 18-10205 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 Page: 5 of 22 judge told Daker he could appeal any limitation after his suit was complete, thereby avoiding any potential waiver. At the same hearing, the magistrate judge informed Daker that he would need to file any claims he had against GSP officers in the Southern District, where the prison was located. Despite the district court’s instruction to file an amended complaint with only the three surviving claims, Daker filed a superseding amended complaint alleging six claims. The district court dismissed the superseding amended complaint for failure to comply with the court’s directions. Importantly, Daker I was not dismissed until months after Daker filed the instant suit. This overlap in the lawsuits was key to the Middle District’s decision to dismiss the claims in the instant case as duplicative. Daker’s appeal of Daker I is currently pending before this Court. Daker v. Jones, No. 17-10695 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2017). Along with Daker I and the instant case, Daker filed a third suit against the GDC and several GDC and GSP officers. Daker v. Bryson, 5:17-cv-00025-TESMSH (M.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 2017) (“Daker III”). The complaint in Daker III alleged, among other things, that several GSP officers had again sprayed Daker with MK-9 and forcibly shaved him, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed Daker III as duplicative of Daker I and Daker II and therefore 5 USCA11 Case: 18-10205 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 Page: 6 of 22 malicious. Daker’s appeal of Daker III is also pending before this Court. Daker v. Ward, No 17-13384 (11th Cir. Jul. 27, 2017).