Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
The Court unanimously held that, for a prisoner seeking to proceed in forma pauperis under the "3 strikes" system of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a strike.· AI-written
140 S. Ct. 1721 · No. 18-8369 · 2019 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 8, 2020 · argued Feb 26, 2020
Civil rights · Indigents: costs or filing fees
Majority opinion: Elena Kagan
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. Lomax lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Lomax was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Arthur James Lomax v. Christina Ortiz-Marquez et al., 590 U.S. 595 (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 Justice Thomas joined the majority in all but Footnote 4 of the opinion.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2019 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Elena KaganWrote the majority opinion
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- LomaxPrisoner, inmate of penal institution
- Respondent
- Ortiz-MarquezGovernmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (Colorado)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 8, 2020DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Lomax lost.
- Feb 26, 2020ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Colorado U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
14 other argued cases since 1946 on indigents: costs or filing fees, newest first.
- Bruce v. Samuels577 U.S. 1021Jan 12, 2016 · 577 U.S. 1021Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Coleman v. Tollefson575 U.S. 532May 18, 2015 · 575 U.S. 532Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- M. L. B. v. S. L. J., Individually and As Next Friend of the Minor Children, S. L. J. and M. L. J., et ux.519 U.S. 102Dec 16, 1996 · 519 U.S. 102Civil rights6–36–3 band
- George F. Denton, Director of Corrections of California, et al. v. Mike Hernandez504 U.S. 25May 4, 1992 · 504 U.S. 25Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Little v. Streater452 U.S. 1Jun 1, 1981 · 452 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Fuller v. Oregon417 U.S. 40May 20, 1974 · 417 U.S. 40Civil rights7–27–2 band
- United States v. Kras409 U.S. 434Jan 10, 1973 · 409 U.S. 434Civil rights5–45–4 band
- James, Judicial Administrator, et al. v. Strange407 U.S. 128Jun 12, 1972 · 407 U.S. 128Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Huffman v. Boersen406 U.S. 337May 15, 1972 · 406 U.S. 337Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Schilb et al. v. Kuebel et al.404 U.S. 357Dec 20, 1971 · 404 U.S. 357Civil rights4–36–3 band
- Boddie et al. v. Connecticut et al.401 U.S. 371Mar 2, 1971 · 401 U.S. 371Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Smith v. Bennett, Warden365 U.S. 708Apr 17, 1961 · 365 U.S. 708Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Burns v. Ohio360 U.S. 252Jun 15, 1959 · 360 U.S. 252Civil rights6–27–2 band
- Adkins, Administratrix, v. E. I. DuPONT de Nemours & Co., Inc. United States, Intervenor335 U.S. 331Nov 22, 1948 · 335 U.S. 331Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.