Although Major League Baseball is not currently calling balls and strikes, the Supreme Court is. See Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8639 (June 8, 2020) (holding 28 U. S. C. §1915(g)’s three-strikes provision refers to any dismissal for failure to state a claim, whether with prejudice or not).
A provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) established what has come to be known as the three-strikes rule for prisoner initiated civil litigation. It generally prevents a prisoner from bringing suits in forma pauperis (IFP)—that is, without paying the filing fee—if he has three or more prior suits “dismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U. S. C. §1915(g).
Petitioner Lomax is an inmate in a Colorado state prison who was expelled from the facility’s sex-offender treatment program. He challenged his expulsion in federal court but was denied IFP status because he had previously brought three unsuccessful legal actions while in prison, including two actions he argued should not count as strikes under the PLRA because they were dismissed without prejudice.
Justice Kagan delivered unanimous opinion of the Court, joined by Justice Thomas as to all but footnote 4. The Court's succinct holding provides:
Today we address whether a suit dismissed for failure to state a claim counts as a strike when the dismissal was without prejudice. We conclude that it does: The text of Section 1915(g)’s three-strikes provision refers to any dismissal for failure to state a claim, whether with prejudice or without.
Justice Kagan later explained, “[t]his case begins, and pretty much ends, with the text of Section 1915(g),” which provides “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.” This language “covers all such dismissals: It applies to those issued both with and without prejudice to a plaintiff’s ability to reassert his claim in a later action.” But the Court was careful to recognize in footnote 4 that three-strike rule “does not apply when a court gives a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. Courts often take that path if there is a chance that amendment can cure a deficient complaint.”
Briefing on the merits is available at the Supreme Court’s website here.