Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
Headline: Court holds that dismissals for failing to state a claim count as strikes even if without prejudice, limiting prisoners’ ability to obtain court fee waivers when they have prior dismissals.
Holding:
- Counts dismissals without prejudice as strikes, limiting prisoners’ ability to get fee waivers.
- Encourages careful initial pleadings to avoid accumulating strikes.
- A complaint dismissed with leave to amend does not count as a strike.
Summary
Background
Arthur Lomax is an inmate in a Colorado prison who sued prison officials after being expelled from a sex-offender treatment program and asked to proceed without paying the $400 filing fee. Lomax had three earlier suits that were dismissed for failing to state a claim, and the lower courts denied his fee-waiver request on the ground that those earlier dismissals were strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule.
Reasoning
The key question was whether a dismissal for failing to state a claim counts as a strike when the dismissal is entered without prejudice. The Court focused on the plain text of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), explaining that the statute uses the broad phrase “dismissed … fails to state a claim” and therefore covers dismissals both with and without prejudice. The opinion rejected arguments that a separate rule or a harmonizing approach limited strikes to only with-prejudice dismissals, and it explained that the ordinary meaning of “dismissed” supports the broader reading.
Real world impact
The ruling means many prisoners with past dismissals for failing to state a claim cannot access fee waivers and must pay filing fees before proceeding. The opinion also notes an important exception: if a court dismisses a case but gives the plaintiff leave to amend, the dismissal does not produce a strike. The decision resolves a split among federal appeals courts and clarifies how the three-strikes rule applies going forward.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas joined the opinion except for one footnote; that footnote explained the leave-to-amend exception mentioned above.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?