Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez

Arthur J. Lomax, an inmate at Limon Correctional Facility in Colorado, filed a lawsuit against prison officials challenging his expulsion from a sex-offender treatment program. He moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), but the courts found he had already accumulated three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Lomax argued that two of his prior dismissals should not count as strikes because they were without prejudice. The Supreme Court unanimously held that any dismissal for failure to state a claim, whether with or without prejudice, counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit's judgment, barring Lomax from proceeding IFP.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit's judgment in a unanimous 9-0 decision. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion, holding that Section 1915(g)'s three-strikes provision refers to any dismissal for failure to state a claim, whether with prejudice or without. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion except for footnote 4.

Whether a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The ruling expanded the scope of the PLRA's three-strikes rule, making it more difficult for prisoners to proceed in forma pauperis after accumulating dismissals, even those without prejudice. Legal scholars and advocates argued that the decision further restricted prisoners' access to federal courts and exacerbated barriers to justice for indigent litigants. The case has been cited in subsequent litigation and policy debates regarding prison reform and judicial access.