Nathan Jacobs v. Christopher Craft
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion [999903327-2]. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00003-IMK-MJA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000005363]. Mailed to: Nathan E. Jacobs. [16-6485]
Appeal: 16-6485
Doc: 14
Filed: 01/18/2017
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6485
NATHAN E. JACOBS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MR. CHRISTOPHER CRAFT, Chaplin,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:16-cv-00003-IMK-MJA)
Submitted:
January 12, 2017
Decided:
January 18, 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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6485
Doc: 14
Filed: 01/18/2017
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Nathan Jacobs appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his Bivens 1 complaint.
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10-1332, 2010 WL 3123169 (D.D.C. Aug. 9, 2010) (unpublished);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(unpublished)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(N.D. Ohio Nov. 1, 2010) (unpublished).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 state that Jacobs’ appeal was
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2
Appeal: 16-6485
Doc: 14
Filed: 01/18/2017
Pg: 3 of 3
frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim for relief.
In
light of our decision in Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607 (4th
Cir. 2013) (en banc), in which we emphasized the importance of
the express language used by the adjudicating court, id. at 61315, 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?