Opinion ID: 4644054
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Southern District Proceedings

Text: Once his case was transferred, Daker filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the Middle District’s order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), arguing that the district court erred both in finding his claims duplicative and in dismissing the MK-9 claim against the State, the Department of Corrections, and the GDC Defendants. A magistrate judge in the Southern District dismissed this motion as improperly filed, ruling that the motion should have been filed in the Middle District. In the same order, the magistrate judge instructed Daker to file an amended complaint within 14 days using an 11-page prisoner civil rights complaint form to which he could attach no more than 10 written pages. The order also provided Daker with an 11item checklist for his amended complaint, including formatting requirements and advice on how to state a valid claim upon which relief could be granted. The magistrate judge made clear that failure to comply with these requirements could result in dismissal of the action. Shortly thereafter, Daker filed a motion for an extension of time to complete the amended complaint. The magistrate judge granted this motion but noted that failure to comply with the extended deadline would result in dismissal. Before the 7 USCA11 Case: 18-10205 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 Page: 8 of 22 expiration of the extended deadline, Daker filed a second motion for extension of time, representing that he needed another extension because he had undergone wrist surgery and could not write for long periods of time. The magistrate judge did not directly rule on this motion. Instead, when Daker failed to meet the amended deadline, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) advising that the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to follow the court’s orders. In the R&R, the magistrate judge noted that Daker had filed seven pleadings totaling 15 written pages of substantive content since ordered to amend his complaint. Because Daker was able to file pleadings longer than the 10 written pages he was allowed to attach to his amended complaint, the magistrate judge determined that Daker’s reason for requesting a second extension was suspect and that no more extensions would be allowed. Daker objected to the R&R. He argued, among other things, that although the surgery was to his non-dominant wrist, he had to use that hand to hold the paper on which he was writing, which caused him a great deal of pain. He also maintained that he needed more pages to plead his case and that the court-imposed limit violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a), which allowed him to bring as many claims as he had against the same defendants. On the same day, Daker filed a motion for appointment of counsel to assist him in amending his complaint. 8 USCA11 Case: 18-10205 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 Page: 9 of 22 The district court overruled Daker’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The district court rejected Daker’s excuses for why he was unable to complete the amended complaint because he had filed 10 pleadings totaling 150 pages since the magistrate judge’s report was filed. If he was able to draft those pleadings, the district court reasoned, he could easily have completed the 21-page amended complaint. The district court also rejected Daker’s assertion that he was unable to adequately plead his case within the page limit set by the magistrate judge. Finally, the district court found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted appointment of counsel. This is Daker’s appeal.