Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721

The PLRA’s three-strikes rule (28 U.S.C. §1915(g)) bars prisoners from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) after 3+ prior suits were "dismissed" as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.
Arthur Lomax, a Colorado inmate, sued prison officials over expulsion from a sex-offender treatment program and sought IFP status.
Lomax had three prior prisoner suits dismissed; two of those dismissals were without prejudice.
The district court and the Tenth Circuit treated those prior dismissals for failure to state a claim as strikes, denying IFP; Lomax challenged counting without-prejudice dismissals.
Circuits were split on whether a dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as a strike when it is without prejudice; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the split.
The Supreme Court affirmed: a dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as a strike regardless of whether it was with or without prejudice, based primarily on the statute’s text and consistency across the PLRA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lomax)	Defendant's Argument (Respondents)	Held
Whether a dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as a §1915(g) strike when it is without prejudice	The phrase "dismissed ... fails to state a claim" is a legal term of art meaning dismissal with prejudice; Rule 41(b) presumption supports treating unspecified dismissals as with prejudice; noscitur a sociis with "frivolous"/"malicious"	The statutory text covers any dismissal for failure to state a claim regardless of prejudice; Rule 41(b) is a default about unspecified orders and actually shows the phrase is indifferent to prejudice; consistency with other PLRA provisions	A dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as a strike whether with or without prejudice
Whether interpretive canons or harmonizing with "frivolous"/"malicious" compels narrowing "failure to state a claim" to only irredeemable (with-prejudice) cases	The three terms should be read similarly; only irredeemable suits (with prejudice) should count	Congress expanded PLRA to include failure-to-state claims; courts sometimes dismiss frivolous/malicious suits without prejudice, so harmonization does not require narrowing	The canon does not override the plain statutory expansion; Congress intended to capture nonmeritorious suits broadly

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (discussing PLRA’s purpose to limit nonmeritorious prisoner litigation)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (claims challenging conviction accrual rule cited re: two prior dismissals)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (pre-PLRA standard addressing frivolous claims)
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (discussing when dismissal with prejudice might be an abuse if amendment could cure defects)
Day v. Maynard, 200 F.3d 665 (cited as one Circuit treating without-prejudice failure-to-state dismissals as strikes)
Durant v. Essex County, 7 Wall. 107 (historic equitable principle underlying Rule 41(b) default)