Case: 17-14972 Date Filed: 05/08/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14972
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-00395-MTT-MSH
WASEEM DAKER,
Movant-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN GREGORY MCLAUGHLIN,
Macon State Prison,
TREVONZA BOBBITT,
Tier II Officer, Macon State Prison,
KENDRICK WILKINSON,
Tier II Officer, Macon State Prison,
STEPHEN BOSTICK,
Tier II Counselor, Macon State Prison,
LIEUTENANT DOMINICO DEMUNDO,
Macon State Prison, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
TRACY McINTOSH,
Tier II Unit Manager, Macon State Prison, et al.,
Defendants.
Case: 17-14972 Date Filed: 05/08/2020 Page: 2 of 3
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(May 8, 2020)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Waseem Daker, a Georgia prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his motion
to intervene, Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, in a civil-rights action, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed by
an inmate, Todd Upshaw, at another Georgia prison. Daker argues that the district
court erred in ruling that he lacked a sufficient interest in Upshaw’s lawsuit and
that, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), he was not
entitled to intervene without first paying a filing fee. Because the district court
committed no error, we dismiss Daker’s appeal.
We have provisional jurisdiction under the “anomalous rule” to review an
order denying intervention. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls Chase Special
Taxing Dist., 983 F.2d 211, 214 (11th Cir. 1993) (quotation marks omitted). If the
decision was correct, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id. If
the district court erred, we retain jurisdiction and must reverse. Id. We review a
denial of a motion to intervene de novo and subsidiary findings of fact for clear
2
Case: 17-14972 Date Filed: 05/08/2020 Page: 3 of 3
error. Tech. Training Assocs. v. Buccaneers Ltd. P’ship, 874 F.3d 692, 695 (11th
Cir. 2017).
The district court committed no error. Daker moved to intervene after the
district court had already granted summary judgment in favor of the officials in
Upshaw’s action, and Daker’s complaint alleged different wrongs about different
incidents at a different prison. And under our precedent, Hubbard v. Haley, 262
F.3d 1194, 1197 (11th Cir. 2001), Daker was not entitled to circumvent the
requirement that he pay a filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), by intervening in another
prisoner’s lawsuit.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
3