Waseem Daker v. Carl Humphrey

Case: 14-13057 Date Filed: 05/25/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13057
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-01554-RWS
WASEEM DAKER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CARL HUMPHREY,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 25, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-13057 Date Filed: 05/25/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Waseem Daker, a Georgia state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. We granted a COA as to whether
the district court erred in dismissing without prejudice Mr. Daker’s pro se § 2254
petition for failure to pay the filing fee. Mr. Daker seeks to present two more
points on appeal. First, Mr. Daker also contends that the district court abused its
discretion in determining that he did not qualify to proceed in forma pauperis
without conducting an adequate factual inquiry into his financial status. And
second, he requests that on remand this Court assign a different judge because the
district court judge’s impartiality has been called into question. After review of the
record and the parties’ briefs, we vacate and remand.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a state prisoner’s petition
for habeas relief. See Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2006). As to
the district court’s findings of fact, however, we review only for clear error. Id.
Under the clear error standard, we will affirm “unless the record lacks substantial
evidence to support that determination.” Id. (internal quotation and citation
omitted).
The district court erred in dismissing Mr. Daker’s petition for failure to pay
the filing fee. Mr. Daker requested an extended deadline to pay the filing fee, and
the district court granted that request. See D.E. 18. The extended deadline for
payment of the fee was December 3, 2013, and, according to the docket entry, Mr.
2
Case: 14-13057 Date Filed: 05/25/2016 Page: 3 of 3
Daker paid the filing fee on November 19, 2013. The district court therefore
clearly erred in finding that Mr. Daker had not paid the filing fee prior to the
extended deadline. See Arthur, 452 F.3d at 1243.
We vacate the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Daker’s habeas corpus
petition and remand for further proceedings. Because our review is limited to the
issue specified in the COA, see Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250–51
(11thd Cir. 1998), we do not address the additional issues presented by Mr. Daker.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3