Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: February 26, 2020
Decided: June 8, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Elena Kagan • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh


Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.[1]

The court affirmed the 10th Circuit's judgment in a unanimous ruling, holding that Section 1915(g) of the United States Code, or the three-strikes provision, refers to any dismissal for failure to state a claim, whether with prejudice or without.[2] Click here for more information.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The District of Colorado rejected the complaint of Limon Correctional Facility prisoner Arthur James Lomax against Centennial Correctional Facility personnel under the three-strikes provision, and rejected Lomax's motion to proceed in forma pauperis for failure to show cause of imminent physical danger. The court ordered Lomax to pay the appellate filing fee in full. The case was appealed. On appeal, the 10th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
  • The issue: "A dismissal of a civil action without prejudice for failure to state a claim, is it or is it not a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g)?"[3]
  • The outcome: The court affirmed the 10th Circuit's judgment in a unanimous ruling, holding that Section 1915(g) of the United States Code, or the three-strikes provision, refers to any dismissal for failure to state a claim, whether with prejudice or without.


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Arthur James Lomax is a prisoner at the Limon Correctional Facility in Colorado and was previously incarcerated at the Centennial Correctional Facility in Colorado. Lomax filed a complaint against five Centennial Correctional Facility employees and a member of the Central Classification Committee at Offender Services, and filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.[4][5][6] The district court had dismissed three of Lomax's previous actions on the grounds that they failed to state a claim and concluded that the dismissals fell under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).[4] The district court ordered Lomax to show cause before proceeding in forma pauperis as a result of the previous three strikes. Lomax argued that the district court's dismissals of his previous complaints were without prejudice and as such do not count as strikes. Lomax also argued that if the previous dismissals did count as strikes, he is under imminent physical danger as a prisoner at the Limon Correctional Facility due to past treatment by guards there, a condition which satisfies the exception to the three-strikes provision.[4] The district court rejected Lomax's arguments and ordered that he pay the $400 appellate filing fee in full if he chose to pursue his claims. On appeal, the 10th Circuit affirmed the district court's decision and denied Lomax's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.[4]

    United States Code three-strikes provision

    The following selection quotes the United States Code's three-strikes provision:[7]

    “ In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.[8] ”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[9]

    Questions presented:
    • A dismissal of a civil action without prejudice for failure to state a claim, is it or is it not a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g)?

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, holding that Section 1915(g) of the United States Code, or the three-strikes provision, refers to any dismissal for failure to state a claim, whether with prejudice or without. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion as to all but footnote 4.[2]

    Opinion

    In her opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:[2]

    “ This case begins, and pretty much ends, with Section 1915(g)’s text. The provision’s broad language covers all dismissals for failure to state a claim, whether issued with or without prejudice to a plaintiff’s ability to reassert his claim in a later action. A strike-call under Section 1915(g) thus hinges exclusively on the basis for the dismissal, regardless of the decision’s prejudicial effect. To reach the opposite result would require reading the word “dismissed” in Section 1915(g) as “dismissed with prejudice.” Doing so would also introduce inconsistencies into the PLRA, which has three other provisions mentioning “dis-miss[als]” for “fail[ure] to state a claim.” §§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b); 42 U. S. C. §1997e(c). As the parties agree, those provisions do not deprive courts of the ability to dismiss suits without prejudice.


    Lomax nonetheless maintains that Section 1915(g)’s phrase “dismissed [for] fail[ure] to state a claim” is a “legal term of art” referring only to dismissals with prejudice. To support this view, he points to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which tells courts to treat a dismissal “as an adjudication on the merits”—meaning a dismissal with prejudice—where the dismissal order does not specify. But Rule 41(b)is necessary precisely because “dismissed for failure to state a claim” refers to dismissals both with and without prejudice. The existence of the rule thus undercuts Lomax’s position.

    Lomax also argues that the Court should interpret the phrase “failure to state a claim” based on the other two grounds for dismissal listed in Section 1915(g). But contra Lomax’s view, courts can and sometimes do dismiss at least frivolous actions without prejudice. Still more fundamentally, interpreting the phrase “failure to state a claim” based on the pre-existing terms “frivolous” and “malicious” would de-feat the PLRA’s expansion of the statute beyond what was already there. Pp. 3–7.

    ... The text of the PLRA’s three-strikes provision makes this case an easy call. A dismissal of a suit for failure to state a claim counts as a strike, whether or not with prejudice. We therefore affirm the judgment below.[8]

    		”
    —Justice Elena Kagan


    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.


    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[10]



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez," accessed October 22, 2019
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez et al., decided June 8, 2020
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez: Questions presented," accessed October 22, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, "Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez," accessed October 22, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 CaseText, "28 U.S.C. § 1915," accessed October 22, 2019
    6. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, In Forma Pauperis, accessed October 22, 2019
    7. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "U.S. Code § 1915. Proceedings in forma pauperis," accessed October 22, 2019
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez: Questions presented," accessed October 22, 2019
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed March 2, 2020
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lomax_v._Ortiz-Marquez&oldid=8891749"