US Supreme Court: Prejudice Not Ground for Three-Strikes Rule Under Prison Litigation Reform Act, 1995

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

The three- strikes Rule had many interpretations by several lower courts. The Judgment came in response to clear the position. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of a suit for failure to state a claim counts as a strike; whether or not with prejudice. 

Background 

Prisoner Arthur Lomax, an inmate in the Colorado prison was part of the sex- offender treatment program. He sued the prison officials in forma pauperis (IFP) for taking him off the program. Before this suit, he had bought three unsuccessful legal actions in his time in prison. According to the Section 1915 (g) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, he cannot contend another suit IFP. Arthur contended that these suits were dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, they would not count as strikes. The lower courts held that these suits would in fact be strikes. The Supreme Court has now taken cognizance of the same.

The Three-Strikes Rule 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) established what has become known as the three-strike rule. It prevents a prisoner from bringing suit in forma pauperis (IFP) if he has had three or more prior suits. The suits “dismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” In forma pauperis is a concept of allowing the suit without liability of Court fees. The three-strike rule was brought in curb with the flood of frivolous prison litigation. 

Petitioner’s Arguments 

The petitioner claimed that since two of his suits were not dismissed with prejudice, they do not count as strikes. He contended that Section 1915 (g)’s phrase “dismissed for failure to state a claim” refers only to dismissals with prejudice. He supported this view with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). This section treats dismissal as dismissal with prejudice only. This rule would allow Lomax to undercut his position. 

Opinion Of the Court 

The Court said that the case begins and ends with the text of the Section 1915(g) of PLRA. The Supreme Court made the intent of the law makers clear. The grounds for dismissal do not include “dismissed with prejudice”. This inclusion would have caused inconsistencies and has, with intent been omitted. Courts can sometimes dismiss frivolous actions suits without prejudice. The point of the PLRA, as its terms show, was to cabin not only abusive but also simply meritless prisoner suits.

Court’s Decision 

The main issue was whether a suit dismissed for failure, to state a claim counts as a strike when the dismissal was without prejudice. The Court held that Section 1915(g) refers to dismissal for failure to state claim, whether with or without prejudice.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -