Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar WASEEM DAKER v. TIMOTHY WARD Commissioner, in individual and official capacities JACK KOON Facilities Director, in individual and official capacities STEVE UPON former Facilities Director, in individual and official capacities ROBERT TOOLE Field Operations Director, in individual and official capacities AHMAD HOLT Deputy Field Operations Director in individual and official capacities, et al USCA11 Case: 24-13121 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 06/22/2026 Page: 1 of 13 2

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-22 Docket: 6:22-cv-00036-JRH-BKE The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of a permanent filing injunction requiring plaintiff Waseem Daker to post a $1,500 contempt bond and include his full litigation history with all future federal filings, as well as the dismissal of his complaint for failure to comply. The court held that applying the injunction to this case was not impermissibly retroactive but rather prospective, noting that Daker received adequate notice through a show-cause order and an opportunity to be heard, thereby satisfying due process requirements. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that the injunction violated the Ex Post Facto Clause or was overbroad, citing the district court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and prevent abusive litigation by serial litigants under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. However, the court reversed the denial of Daker’s motion to modify the injunction and remanded the case for consideration on the merits. The court determined that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint without addressing the substance of Daker’s timely motion, which argued he could not afford the bond or access necessary records. Although the district court treated the motion as a request for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the appellate court found it was actually a valid motion to modify filed within the deadline established by the prison mailbox rule and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Consequently, the lower court was required to evaluate Daker’s specific arguments regarding indigence and ability to comply rather than applying the strict standard for Rule 59(e) relief. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.