DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez

Issues

Does a court’s dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim count towards a prisoner’s three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which would ban him from filing future legal complaints without filing fees?

The Supreme Court will decide whether a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915 contains a “three-strikes rule” holding a prisoner liable for litigation costs incurred when filing a civil lawsuit if the prisoner has had three or more prior civil lawsuits dismissed. Petitioner Arthur J. Lomax argues that a court’s dismissal of a complaint without prejudice does not count towards the three-strikes rule that would ban him from filing future legal complaints without filing fees. Lomax supports this argument by noting that dismissal without prejudice does not fall within the meaning of “dismissal” in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Respondent Christina Ortiz-Marquez asserts that this type of dismissal does count towards the three-strike rule because the statute does not differentiate between dismissal with or without prejudice. The Court’s decision will affect a prisoner’s ability to bring civil actions while incarcerated.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).

Petitioner, Arthur Lomax, is currently a prisoner at Limon Correctional Facility. Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez at 2. Before being incarcerated at the Limon Facility, Lomax was incarcerated at the Centennial Correctional Facility in Colorado. Id.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Issues

Does Rule 60(b) permit plaintiffs to reopen suits that they voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41? 

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine if courts may relieve a party under Rule 60(b) from a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Waetzig contends that the language “final judgment, order, or proceeding” in Rule 60(b) includes a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice because it is a step in a proceeding that terminates the case. Halliburton Energy Services counters that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is neither a proceeding nor final because the plaintiff preserves the right to refile suit. The outcome of this case affects federal courts’ ability to grant Rule 60(b) relief to plaintiffs who dismissed their case because of a mistake or fraud. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

In February 2020, Gary Waetzig sued Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Halliburton”), his former employer, for violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Waetzig v.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Alexandra Lahav for her insights into this case. 

Additional Resources

  • The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Brief of Amicus Curiae, (December 26, 2024).
Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE