Nathan Jacobs v. Shelly Carr

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999903326-2]. Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00001-JPB-MJA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000018480]. Mailed to: Nathan E. Jacobs. [16-6372]

Appeal: 16-6372

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6372

NATHAN E. JACOBS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MRS. SHELLY CARR, Case Manager,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:16-cv-00001-JPB-MJA)

Submitted:

January 12, 2017

Decided:

February 7, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathan E. Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6372

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nathan

E.

Jacobs

appeals

the

dismissing his Bivens 1 complaint.

district

court’s

order

Because the district court

incorrectly determined that Jacobs has three qualifying strikes
under

the

Prison

Litigation

Reform

Act

(PLRA),

28

U.S.C.

§ 1915(g) (2012), we vacate the order of dismissal and remand.
In concluding that Jacobs had three strikes under the PLRA
at the time he filed the subject complaint, the district court
relied on Jacobs v. U.S.A. Supreme Court Clerk, Civ. Action No.
10-1332, 2010 WL 3123169 (D.D.C. Aug. 9, 2010) (unpublished);
Jacobs v. Supreme Court of the United States, No. 10-5271, 2011
WL

2199975

(D.C.

Cir.

May

17,

2011)

(unpublished)

(“Supreme

Court”); and Jacobs v. Holder, No. 4:10-cv-1544, 2010 WL 4449357
(N.D. Ohio Nov. 1, 2010) (unpublished).
district

court

erred

in

finding

that

We conclude that the
Supreme

Court

properly

qualifies as a strike.
In

Supreme

District
“[b]ecause

of

Court,

Columbia

the

the

Circuit

appropriate

action is warranted.”

U.S.

Court

denied

disposition

of

Appeals

relief,
is

so

2011 WL 2199975, at *1.

for

stating
clear,

the
that

summary

However, the

court did not reference § 1915 or explicitly state that Jacobs’

1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2

Appeal: 16-6372

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

appeal was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim for
relief.
607

In light of our decision in Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d

(4th

Cir.

importance

of

2013)
the

(en

express

banc),

in

language

which
used

we

by

emphasized

the

the

adjudicating

court, id. at 613-15, 617, we conclude that the language in
Supreme Court does not evidence a PLRA strike. 2
Accordingly, we vacate the order of dismissal and remand
for further proceedings.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

We deny Jacobs’ pending motion.

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

2

A PACER search did not reveal any other action that could
properly qualify as a strike against Jacobs.

3