Case: 17-15629 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-15629
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv-00049-JRH-RSB
WASEEM DAKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
BRIAN CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON,
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 2, 2019)
Case: 17-15629 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 2 of 5
Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Waseem Daker, a Georgia prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint. He argues that the district court
erred in dismissing his complaint under the “three strikes” provision in the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). After careful review, we
affirm.
When Daker filed his civil rights complaint, he filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. The magistrate judge issued a recommendation that the
court dismiss Daker’s complaint without prejudice.
The magistrate judge identified two alternative grounds for dismissing
Daker’s complaint. First, the magistrate judge explained that Daker’s complaint
was due to be dismissed under the PLRA’s three strikes provision. The magistrate
judge found that Daker had four previous filings that had been dismissed because
they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim for relief. Because Daker
had three or more “strikes” under the PLRA and failed to prepay the filing fee, the
magistrate judge recommended that his complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
Second, the magistrate judge explained that Daker’s complaint could be
dismissed on the alternative ground that he had failed to provide truthful
information regarding his financial status in his application to proceed in forma
2
Case: 17-15629 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 3 of 5
pauperis. The magistrate judge noted that in other cases courts had found that
Daker had filed affidavits to proceed in forma pauperis that concealed or misstated
his true assets and income. The magistrate judge determined that Daker made
similar allegations of poverty in this case and thus had abused the judicial process,
which warranted the dismissal of his complaint. 1
Daker objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. He argued that
his complaint was not due to be dismissed under the PLRA’s three strikes
provision. But Daker did not challenge the magistrate judge’s alternative
determination that the action was due to be dismissed because he had concealed or
misstated his assets and income in his application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The district court overruled Daker’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendations, and dismissed his complaint without prejudice. This is Daker’s
appeal.
“Ordinarily, a federal litigant who is too poor to pay court fees may proceed
in forma pauperis,” meaning that “the litigant may commence a civil action
without prepaying fees or paying certain expenses.” Coleman v. Tollefson,
135 S. Ct. 1759, 1761 (2015); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). But the PLRA’s “three-
1
In the recommendation, the magistrate judge acknowledged that in general a district
court was permitted to dismiss an action on its own motion only if the plaintiff received notice of
the court’s intent to dismiss the action or had an opportunity to respond. The magistrate judge
explained that Daker received such notice through the recommendation and had an opportunity
to respond by filing an objection to the recommendation.
3
Case: 17-15629 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 4 of 5
strikes” provision limits when certain prisoners may proceed in forma pauperis.
Daker v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 820 F.3d 1278, 1283 (11th Cir. 2016). The
PLRA provides that a prisoner may not
bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding
[in forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions,
while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or
appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds
that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The PLRA also provides that a court “shall dismiss” a case
“at any time” if it determines that “the allegation of poverty is untrue.” Id.
§ 1915(e)(2).
Here, the district court’s dismissal of Daker’s complaint rested on two
independent grounds: (1) that he had three strikes and (2) that his allegations of
poverty were untrue. “To obtain reversal of a district court judge that is based on
multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated
ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). If “the appellant fails to challenge
properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its
judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it
follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.” Id.
4
Case: 17-15629 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 5 of 5
On appeal, Daker challenges the district court’s dismissal of his complaint
under § 1915(g)’s three-strikes provision. But he raises no argument challenging
the district court’s alternative determination that his complaint was due to be
dismissed under § 1915(e) because in his application to proceed in forma pauperis
he had concealed or misstated his true assets and income, making his allegation of
poverty untrue. Even though we liberally construe briefs filed by pro se litigants,
issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. See
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Because Daker
abandoned any challenge to the district court’s independent, alternative ground for
dismissing his complaint, the district court’s judgment is due to be affirmed. See
Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680.
AFFIRMED.
5
Waseem Daker v. USA
Combined Opinion