Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06485/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06485-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Craft
Appellee
Nathan E. Jacobs
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathan Jacobs appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

his Bivens1 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10-1332, 2010 WL 3123169 (D.D.C. Aug. 9, 2010) (unpublished); 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WL 2199975 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 2011) (unpublished) “Supreme 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(N.D. Ohio Nov. 1, 2010) (unpublished). We conclude that the 

district court erred in finding that Supreme Court properly 

qualifies as a strike.

In Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit denied relief, stating that 

“[b]ecause the appropriate disposition is so clear, summary 

action is warranted.” 2011 WL 2199975, at *1. 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).

Appeal: 16-6485 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
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 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. We deny Jacobs’ pending motion. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the 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.

Appeal: 16-6485 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pg: 3 of 3