Waseem Daker v. Gregory Dozier

── Waseem Daker v. Gregory Dozier ── Case No.: 24-13122 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 13, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-13122 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13122 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ WASEEM DAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GREGORY DOZIER, former GDC Commissioner, HOMER BRYSON, former GDC Commissioner, TIMOTHY WARD, former GDC Assistant Commissioner, RICK JACOBS, former GDC Facilities Director, DEPUTY FACILITIES DIRECTOR, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 24-13122 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13122 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cv-00072-JRH-CLR ____________________ Before JORDAN, KIDD, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Waseem Daker appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). Daker argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismiss- ing his complaint for failure to comply with the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia’s (“Northern District”) filing in- junction (“Order”). Daker makes six arguments as to how the dis- trict court abused its discretion: (1) the Order is an impermissible universal or nationwide injunction pursuant to Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025), (2) the warning that failure to comply with the Order would result in summary dismissal only applies to the Northern District, (3) Daker’s amended complaint corrected any issues, (4) the district court did not accept Daker’s factual allega- tions as true, (5) Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. 460 (2025), required the district court to submit Daker’s court-access claims to a jury, and (6) dismissal with prejudice was impermissible. USCA11 Case: 24-13122 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 3 of 9 24-13122 Opinion of the Court 3 I. DISCUSSION A. Universal Injunction Daker argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint for failure to comply with the Order be- cause the Order is an impermissible universal or nationwide injunc- tion pursuant to Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025). We review a district court’s decision to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order for abuse of discretion. Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1122 (11th Cir. 2017). We review questions of constitutional law de novo. Kentner v. City of Sanibel, 750 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2014). In CASA, the Supreme Court held that universal injunctions are beyond the power of the federal courts because the Judiciary Act does not permit them, and federal courts “resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.” 606 U.S. at 847, 861. The Supreme Court stated that “[s]uch [universal] injunctions are sometimes called ‘nationwide