Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
| Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez | |
|---|---|
| Argued February 26, 2020 Decided June 8, 2020 | |
| Full case name | Arthur James Lomax v. Christina Ortiz-Marquez; Natasha Kindred; Danny Dennis; Mary Quintana |
| Docket no. | 18-8369 |
| Citations | 590 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Case No. 17-1016, (D.C. No. 1:16-CV-02833-LTB) (D.Colo.), Case No. 18-1250, (D.C. No. 1:18-CV-00321-GPG-LTB) (D. Colorado) |
| Holding | |
| In regards to prisoners filing to proceed in forma pauperis, cases dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim count as "strikes" in the "three strike system" under 28 U.S.C § 1915(g), which bars prisoners from requesting waiver of fees after three cases of frivolous nature or if they fail to state a claim. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas (in all but Footnote 4) |
| Laws applied | |
| Prison Litigation Reform Act | |
Arthur James Lomax v. Christina Ortiz-Marquez et al., 590 U.S. ___ (2020) was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that in situations and proceedings in which a prisoner is filing to proceed In forma pauperis, as it pertains to the "3 strikes" system set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a dismissal without prejudice counts for failure to state a claim counts as a "strike. The court held this in a unanimous decision, although interestingly Justice Thomas joined the majority in all but Footnote 4 of the opinion.