Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
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.
Real-world impact
- 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.
Topics
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.
Questions, answered
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents). Try:
- “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?”