While Justice Thomas joined the majority opinion, he did so with the exception of this foothnote. The Court did mention in a footnote that when a district court gives a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, “the provision does not apply.” The Court explained that under FRCP 15(a), courts often take this route if it feels that an amended complaint would “cure a deficient complaint.” As such, “because the suit continues, the court’s action falls outside of Section 1915(g) and no strike accrues.” Id. As such, to read the three-strikes rule to apply more narrowly and only to dismissals with prejudice “would introduce inconsistencies into the statute,” which the Court declined to embrace. This allows the courts to decide whether a dismissal for failure to state a claim “should have preclusive effect.” Id. The Court then explained that those provisions do not limit the courts to dismiss only with prejudice rather, the courts have “the ability to dismiss those suits without prejudice” as well. The Court noted three other provisions under the PLRA where the language (dismissal for failure to state a claim) presents itself. To support its position of not overreaching its bounds, the Court explained that if it were to insert words that Congress chose to omit, this would violate “another rule of statutory construction: ‘In all but the most unusual situations, a single use of a statutory phrase must have a fixed meaning’ across a statute.” Id., citing Cochise Consultancy, Inc. The Court stated that it has no authority to make such a reach. The Court explained that if it were to read the word “dismissed” more narrowly and to the exclusion of dismissals without prejudice, then the Court would be narrowing the “provision’s reach by inserting words Congress chose to omit.” Id. The Court began its analysis by stating that this language “hinges exclusively on the basis for dismissal,” and that “the decision’s prejudicial effect” is inconsequential. Noting that “a prisoner accrues a strike for any action ‘dismissed on the ground that it…fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’” the Court held that the broad language provided includes all dismissals. The Court applied a straight-forward reading of the statutory text to reach its holding. The Court noted that the circuits were split on this issue, identifying the Tenth, Ninth, Eighth, and Seventh Circuits on one side and the Fourth and Third Circuits holding otherwise, namely, that dismissals without prejudice for failure to state a claim is not a strike. While the Tenth circuit disagreed and ruled against him holding that whether a dismissal was with or without prejudice is “immaterial to the strikes analysis,” other circuits hold the opposite. Lomax argued that for various reasons, cases dismissed without prejudice should not be included in the three-strike rule, thus allowing his case to move forward with IFP status. Lomax had brought three prior unsuccessful legal actions, two of which were dismissed without prejudice. The Court, in applying a straight-forward statutory reading of the law, determined that it is the former.Ĭolorado prison inmate Arthur Lomax filed suit against respondent prison officials challenging Lomax’s “expulsion from the facility’s sex-offender treatment program.” Lomax, 509 U.S. The language for the Court to determine was whether this applies to all dismissed cases (dismissed with or without prejudice) or only those dismissed with prejudice. The key provision at issue in Lomax was Section (g) of the PLRA: an inmate is prevented from filing a claim if that inmate has had three or more prior suits “dismissed on the grounds” that they were “frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Id.
Within the PLRA is a three-strikes rule which, once reached, prevents an inmate from bringing suit as in forma pauperis (IFP) thereby avoiding paying up front the associated filing fees to begin a law suit. To stem this tide, Congress enacted the PLRA, 28 USC Sec. The PLRA was created after the federal courts were inundated with lawsuits filed by inmates and it was realized that many of those lawsuits were found to be frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The short answer: a dismissal is just that, a dismissal, regardless of its prejudicial effect. The Court in a 9-0 decision clarified what the term dismissal means in the context of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) and its three-strikes rule.