govinfo:USCOURTS-gand-1_20-cv-03690-5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
STATESBORO DIVISION 
WASEEM DAKER, 
Plaintiff, 
ORDER 
Waseem Daker has filed several motions 
with the Court. ECF Nos. 28, 29, 31. Daker 
previously filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 
§ 1983. ECF No. 1. That complaint was 
dismissed, in part because he did not qualify 
for an exception from the three strikes rule. 
ECF No. 13 at 4-5. 
V . 
	
6: 14-cv-47 
I. 	 MOTION TO RECUSE 
PATRICK HEAD; JESSE D. EVANS; 
MARY E. STALEY; BRIAN OWENS; 
TIMOTHY WARD; RANDY TILLMAN; 
RICK JACOBS; ROBERT E. JONES; 
CARL HUMPHREY; DR. SHARON 
LEWIS; SHEVONDAH FIELDS; LISA 
FOUNTAIN; TORIS MCLESSIA 
ROZIER; JAMES DEMETRIUS 
SMITH; GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF 
CORRECTIONS; ROBERT TOOLE; 
WENDELL FOWLER; JOHN PAUL; 
Ms. JULGORE; Mr. DELOACH; 
MILTON SMITH; MURIEL JACKSON; 
JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; DR JOHN 
DOE; DR. JANE DOE; Ms. KING; P. 
MURPHY; Off. HENRY; Ms. BROWN; 
THREE JOHN DOES; BRUCE 
CHATMAN; JUNE BISHOP; DR. DEAN 
BROOME; Mr. CARAVELLO; 
WILLIAM McNUNN; STEPHEN 
NICOLOV; SHARON BROWN; Ms. 
LIGHTSEY; Ms. CROWDER; Ms. 
STRICKLAND; Ms. DOBBS; Ms. 
SICVERS; Ms. COWART; Ms. BRADY; 
TIFFANY WOOTEN; Mr. 
THURMOND; DEBBIE KING; Major 
SMITH; Sgt. SALGADO; RONNIE 
SHUEMAKE; TARAL TODMAN; 
BENJAMIN WARREN; AS WON 
CAULEY; FREDDIE DAVIS; JAMES 
McMILLAN; MICHAEL NUPEN; 
TORJKA NASH; LESLEY MEDLOCK; 
and SARAH BARBER, 
Defendants. 
Daker first seeks recusal of Judge B. 
Avant Edenfield from this case. ECF No. 
28. "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge 
of the United States shall disqualify himself 
in any proceeding in which his impartiality 
might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. 
§ 455(a). As implied in the statute, 
"[j]udges routinely preside over motions for 
their own recusal." In re Evergreen Sec., 
Ltd., 570 F.3d 1257, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009). 
Therefore, the Court will rule on Daker's 
Motion. 
"Ordinarily, a judge's rulings in the 
same or a related case may not serve as the 
basis for a recusal motion." McWhorter v. 
City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 
(11th Cir. 1990). "J]udicial rulings alone 
almost never constitute a valid basis for a 
bias or partiality motion." Liteky v. United 
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). In fact, a 
judge's rulings "do not constitute a basis for 
a bias or partiality motion unless they 
display a deep-seated favoritism or 
antagonism that would make fair judgment 
impossible." Id. This disqualifying bias 
"must be personal and extrajudicial; it must 
derive from something other than that which 
the judge learned by participating in the 
case." McWhorter, 906 F.2d at 678. Unless 
the moving party "demonstrates pervasive 
Case 1:20-cv-03690-SDG     Document 34     Filed 11/25/14     Page 1 of 2
bias and prejudice," the judge will not 
disqualify himself. Id. (quotation omitted). 
Although citing several cases relating to 
recusal, Daker cites no improper action of 
the Court apart from failing to rule in his 
favor. His allegations of bias stem merely 
from disagreement with the rulings of the 
Court. "The alleged bias is thus judicial 
rather than personal in nature." See id 
Because judicial opinions are insufficient to 
provide a basis for recusal, such a remedy is 
unwarranted here. 
Therefore, the Court DENIES Daker's 
Motion, ECF No. 28. 
II. MOTION TO VACATE THE 
JUDGMENT 
Daker has also filed a Rule 59(e) Motion 
with the Court, seeking to have the judgment 
vacated. ECF No. 31. Daker previously 
moved the Court to amend its judgment 
under the same rule, ECF No. 23, and the 
Court denied his motion because "he ha[d] 
offered no new argument in support of 
altering the Court's judgment," ECF No. 25, 
Here, Daker has still failed to provide 
any new argument or evidence to the Court. 
Each argument Daker presents in this 
Motion was made previously when he 
objected to the magistrate judge's Report 
and Recommendation. See ECF No. 16. 
Indeed, he repeats many of the paragraphs, 
as well as pages eighteen through twenty-
four verbatim. See ECF Nos. 31 at 18-24; 
16 at 16-22. A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be 
used "to relitigate old matters, raise 
argument[,] or present evidence that could 
have been raised prior to the entry of 
judgment." Michael Linet, Inc. v. Viii. of 
Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th 
Cir. 2005). Because Daker's motion offers 
no new argument in support of altering the 
Court's judgment, the Court DENIES his 
Rule 59(e) Motion, ECF No. 31. 
III. MOTION TO STAY 
Daker also filed a Motion to Stay 
Proceedings with the Court, requesting that 
the case be stayed until a determination is 
made by the Eleventh Circuit. ECF No. 29 
at 1. A determination has been made by the 
Eleventh Circuit, dismissing this case for 
lack of prosecution. ECF No. 32. Because 
the appeal has been dismissed, Daker's 
Motion to Stay, ECF No. 29, is DENIED. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Court DENIES each of the above 
motions brought by Daker in this matter, 
ECF Nos. 28, 29, 31. 
This,q-4 day of November 2014. 
B. AVANT EDENFIELD, DGE 
UNITED STATES DIST1CT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
= 
2 
Case 1:20-cv-03690-SDG     Document 34     Filed 11/25/14     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight