{"id":1283,"date":"2020-06-08T08:13:50","date_gmt":"2020-06-08T15:13:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283"},"modified":"2020-06-08T08:15:44","modified_gmt":"2020-06-08T15:15:44","slug":"supreme-court-affirms-that-jailhouse-lawyer-law-means-just-what-it-says","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Affirms That “Jailhouse Lawyer” Law Means Just What It Says"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today in Lomax<\/em> v. Ortiz-Marquez<\/em><\/a>, No. 18-8369, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that a statute means exactly what it clearly says. One might well wonder why it is necessary to have the Supreme Court weigh in on such an obvious question, but two courts of appeals had decided it the other way. Justice Kagan’s opinion for the Court states the issue:<\/p>\n

To help staunch a \u201cflood of nonmeritorious\u201d prisoner litigation, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) established what has become known as the three-strikes rule…. That rule generally prevents a prisoner from bringing suit in forma pauperis<\/em> (IFP)\u2014that is, without first paying the filing fee\u2014if he has had three or more prior suits \u201cdismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.\u201d … Today we address whether a suit dismissed for failure to state a claim counts as a strike when the dismissal was without prejudice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Notice that the statute does not say “dismissed without prejudice.” It just says “dismissed.” The Court sees it that way, too, without dissent. “This case begins, and pretty much ends, with the text of Section 1915(g).”<\/p>\n

If a complaint fails to allege facts which, if true, would entitle the plaintiff to relief, it may be dismissed. The judge might make the dismissal “without prejudice,” meaning the plaintiff can bring a new suit on the same claim after cleaning up his act, or the judge might not.<\/p>\n

A dismissal without prejudice may be appropriate, particularly in a prisoner case, to preclude shutting off a meritorious action merely because the plaintiff did not understand the requirements of the law. However, the PLRA provision only kicks in if a prisoner has had three<\/em> lawsuits thrown out. Once might very well be an honest mistake. Three times means the prisoner is just being a pest, writing lawsuits in his copious spare time and filing them for free, exploiting the generosity of the system for “paupers.” Defending these suits costs the government and its officials real time and real money, and PLRA clearly says that after three enough is enough.<\/p>\n

Even so, two circuits (in other cases) decided to the contrary, running roughshod over the language of the statute. The Supreme Court today set them straight.<\/p>\n

The text of the PLRA\u2019s three-strikes provision makes this case an easy call. A dismissal of a suit for failure to state a claim counts as a strike, whether or not with prejudice. We therefore affirm the judgment below.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today in Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that a statute means exactly what it clearly says. One might well wonder why it is necessary to have the Supreme Court weigh in on such an obvious question, but two courts of appeals had decided it the other way. Justice Kagan’s opinion for the Court states the issue: To help staunch a \u201cflood of nonmeritorious\u201d prisoner litigation, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) established what has become known as the three-strikes rule…. That rule generally prevents a prisoner from bringing suit in forma pauperis (IFP)\u2014that is, without first paying the filing fee\u2014if he has had three or more prior suits \u201cdismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.\u201d … Today we address whether a suit dismissed for failure to state a claim counts as a strike when the dismissal was without prejudice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,43,56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-civil-suits","category-prisons","category-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Affirms That "Jailhouse Lawyer" Law Means Just What It Says - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Affirms That "Jailhouse Lawyer" Law Means Just What It Says - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Today in Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that a statute means exactly what it clearly says. One might well wonder why it is necessary to have the Supreme Court weigh in on such an obvious question, but two courts of appeals had decided it the other way. Justice Kagan’s opinion for the Court states the issue: To help staunch a \u201cflood of nonmeritorious\u201d prisoner litigation, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) established what has become known as the three-strikes rule…. That rule generally prevents a prisoner from bringing suit in forma pauperis (IFP)\u2014that is, without first paying the filing fee\u2014if he has had three or more prior suits \u201cdismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.\u201d … Today we address whether a suit dismissed for failure to state a claim counts as a strike when the dismissal was without prejudice.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-06-08T15:13:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-06-08T15:15:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court Affirms That \\\"Jailhouse Lawyer\\\" Law Means Just What It Says - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-06-08T15:13:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-06-08T15:15:44+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court Affirms That “Jailhouse Lawyer” Law Means Just What It Says\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Affirms That \"Jailhouse Lawyer\" Law Means Just What It Says - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Affirms That \"Jailhouse Lawyer\" Law Means Just What It Says - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"Today in Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that a statute means exactly what it clearly says. One might well wonder why it is necessary to have the Supreme Court weigh in on such an obvious question, but two courts of appeals had decided it the other way. Justice Kagan’s opinion for the Court states the issue: To help staunch a \u201cflood of nonmeritorious\u201d prisoner litigation, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) established what has become known as the three-strikes rule…. That rule generally prevents a prisoner from bringing suit in forma pauperis (IFP)\u2014that is, without first paying the filing fee\u2014if he has had three or more prior suits \u201cdismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.\u201d … Today we address whether a suit dismissed for failure to state a claim counts as a strike when the dismissal was without prejudice.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2020-06-08T15:13:50+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-06-08T15:15:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283","name":"Supreme Court Affirms That \"Jailhouse Lawyer\" Law Means Just What It Says - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-06-08T15:13:50+00:00","dateModified":"2020-06-08T15:15:44+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=1283#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Affirms That “Jailhouse Lawyer” Law Means Just What It Says"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1283"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1283\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1285,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1283\/revisions\/1285"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}