United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
ROBERT L. MERIWETHER, Plaintiff,
PA HOWARD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REJECTING THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. SELF, III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. 29] to deny
Defendant Jessica Battle's Motion to Dismiss [Doc.
25] Plaintiff's Section 1983 action against her.
Defendant Battle seeks dismissal pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act's (“PLRA”)
three-strikes rule arguing that Meriwether v.
Rasnick, No. 1:00-CV-2952 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 8, 2000);
Meriwether v. Baldwin, No. 1:00-CV-2953 (N.D.Ga.
Dec. 8, 2000); and Meriwether v. Hayes, No.
1:00-CV-2954,  all constitute “strikes”
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). After reviewing the
magistrate judge's R&R, Defendant Battle timely filed
her objection pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As
such, the district court conducted a de novo review
of the portions of the R&R to which objection was made,
and for the reasons discussed below, REJECTS
the magistrate judge's R&R. 28 U.S.C. §
is clear that in “determining whether a prisoner has
accrued three strikes, ‘the [PLRA] instructs [courts]
to consult the prior order that dismissed the action
or appeal and to identify the reasons that the court
gave for dismissing it.'” [Doc. 29 at p. 2
(alterations in original) (quoting Daker v. Comm'r,
Ga. Dep't of Corr., 820 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir.
2016) (emphasis in original))]. In his R&R, the
magistrate judge wrote that “[c]ourts are not permitted
to conclude that a case counts as a strike against a prisoner
‘based on [a] conclusion that the dismissing court
could have dismissed it'” for one of the
grounds enumerated in § 1915(g). [Doc. 29 at pp. 2-3
(quoting Daker, 820 F.3d at 1284 (emphasis in
original))]. Based on this, the magistrate judge concluded
that because the 2000 Meriwether cases are not in
the record for the Court's review-to conclusively
determine whether a previous dismissing court's reasoning
for disposing of the cases can constitute
“strikes”-it cannot be said that those cases were
dismissed under § 1915(g). [Id. at p. 3]. This
is undeniably true. The record before the magistrate judge,
at the time he issued his R&R, was not clear regarding
the reasoning for the earlier dismissals of the 2000
Meriwether cases and whether those dismissals would
count as “strikes” for purposes of §
Objection [Doc. 30], Defendant Battle urges the Court to take
judicial notice of a 2015 order from the Northern District of
Georgia which indicated that “the dockets” for
the 2000 Meriwether cases “were dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and that all count as
‘strikes' under 1915(g).” [Doc. 30 at p.
2 (quoting [Doc. 25-3 at p. 3]) (italics in original)].
Because the PLRA instructs courts to identify the reasoning
on which a court based a previous dismissal, rather than take
judicial notice of the Order from the Northern District of
Georgia, the Court deferred ruling on the magistrate
judge's R&R until Defendant Battle could supplement
her Objection with the materials received from the National
Archives. See [Doc. 30 at pp. 3-4]. Two weeks after
filing her initial Objection, Defendant Battle supplemented
her Objection by filing the archived record materials related
to the 2000 Meriwether cases from the Northern
District of Georgia.
review of those materials shows that instead of filing a
single, all-inclusive lawsuit against three defendants,
Plaintiff Meriwether filed three different lawsuits, with
three different case numbers, all of which were dismissed on
the district court's frivolity review. See
[Docs. 32-1, 32-2, 32-3]. In dismissing the three 2000
Meriwether cases, the district court filed identical
orders in each case reasoning that Meriwether failed to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted, one of the three
bases of dismissal at the PLRA's frivolity-review stage.
Given that the substance of these prior orders falls within
the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff has incurred
three strikes and the Court must sustain Defendant
Battle's Objection. Accordingly, the Court
REJECTS the United States Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 29] and
GRANTS Defendant Battle's Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 25]. As there are no remaining Defendants in
this case, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of
Court to close this case and to enter judgment accordingly.
 Defendant Battle is the only remaining
Defendant in this case. See [Docs. 8, 14].
 Collectively referred to as the
“2000 Meriwether ...