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

Heading: Middle District Proceedings

Text: Returning to the instant suit (“Daker II”), the Middle District dismissed all but one of Daker’s claims as malicious because they were duplicative of the claims in Daker I, which was still pending in the district court when Daker filed the complaint in this case. The only claim that was not duplicative was the one based on Daker’s allegation that the use of MK-9 against prisoners at GSP violated the Eighth Amendment. But as to this new claim, Daker failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that anyone other than the officers at GSP were liable for the use of MK-9 on him or other prisoners. As a result, the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim the MK-9 claim against the GDC Defendants, the State of Georgia, and the Georgia Department of Corrections. The district court also noted that Daker’s MK-9 claim against the State of Georgia and GDC would fail for another reason—because § 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity. Because Georgia had not otherwise waived sovereign immunity for this suit, both the state and the GDC were immune under the Eleventh Amendment. After the MK-9 claim against these defendants was dismissed, all that remained of Daker’s suit was his MK-9 claim against officers at GSP. Because none of the GSP Defendants was a resident of the Middle District, and none of the 6 USCA11 Case: 18-10205 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 Page: 7 of 22 alleged events took place there, the district court found that venue was no longer appropriate there. The court therefore transferred the case to the Southern District, where GSP is located and the remaining defendants resided.