No. 21-1332

Waseem Daker v. Timothy Ward, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2022-04-06
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: blood-borne-disease blood-borne-diseases civil-rights cruel-and-unusual-punishment due-process imminent-danger incarcerated-rights prison-litigation-reform-act serious-physical-injury standing sua-sponte-dismissal
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-05-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether an incarcerated person must allege presently occurring or certain-to-occur serious physical injury to invoke the 'imminent danger' exception under 28-U.S.C-1915(g)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner alleged that Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) officers place him in imminent danger of contracting hepatitis or HIV by forcibly shaving him with a damaged, unsanitized razor on a semi-monthly basis in a prison system where both blood-borne diseases are endemic. The Eleventh Circuit panel held that those allegations were “too speculative” to satisfy the exception because petitioner “has not contracted an infectious disease” or alleged the same of another prisoner despite the “longstanding custom.” No other circuit follows this rule. Judge Rosenbaum dissented, explaining that the correct test is whether the allegations “allow a court to draw reasonable inferences” of future “danger.” Five circuits follow this rule. The panel also held that Petitioner’s lawsuit : was duplicative of two prior, similar lawsuits that were based on different forcible shaving instances, and therefore, malicious. Although other circuits hold that duplicative lawsuits are subject to dismissal as malicious, the panel’s decision is a notable outlier, No other circuit would hold that petitioner’s challenge is malicious. All other circuits hold that duplicative means nearly identical. The questions presented are as follows I. Whether an incarcerated person must allege presently occurring or certain-to-occur serious physical injury in order to successfully invoke the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act “three-strikes” provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)? 1 ¥ . II. Whether three cases challenging three chronologically distinct episodes of forcible shavings, but motivated by the same long-standing department policy are “duplicative,” and therefore subject to sua sponte dismissal under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provision authorizing pre-service dismissal of “malicious” complaints, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A? li ba é

Docket Entries

2022-05-16
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
2022-04-13
Waiver of right of respondent Timothy Ward, et al. to respond filed.
2021-12-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 6, 2022)
2021-12-07
Application (21A206) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until December 28, 2021.
2021-11-24
Application (21A206) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 28, 2021 to January 27, 2022, submitted to Justice Thomas.

Attorneys

Timothy Ward, et al.
Stephen John PetranyGeorgia Department of Law, Respondent
Waseem Daker
Waseem Daker — Petitioner