From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cooper v. Pate

U.S.
Jun 22, 1964
378 U.S. 546 (1964)

Summary

holding that inmates may not be denied permission to purchase certain religious publications because of their religious beliefs

Summary of this case from Doe v. Dewees

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

No. 1134, Misc.

Decided June 22, 1964.

Certiorari granted and judgment reversed.

Reported below: 324 F.2d 165.

Alex Elson and Bernard Weisberg for petitioner.

William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Raymond S. Sarnow and Edward A. Berman, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.


The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.

The petitioner, an inmate at the Illinois State Penitentiary, brought an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1979 of the Revised Statutes, alleging that solely because of his religious beliefs he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners. The District Court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 324 F.2d 165 (C.A. 7th Cir.). We reverse the judgment below. Taking as true the allegations of the complaint, as they must be on a motion to dismiss, the complaint stated a cause of action and it was error to dismiss it. See Pierce v. LaVallee, 293 F.2d 233 (C.A. 2d Cir.); Sewell v. Pegelow, 291 F.2d 196 (C.A. 4th Cir.).


Summaries of

Cooper v. Pate

U.S.
Jun 22, 1964
378 U.S. 546 (1964)

holding that inmates may not be denied permission to purchase certain religious publications because of their religious beliefs

Summary of this case from Doe v. Dewees

holding that a prisoner who alleged that "solely because of his religious beliefs he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners" stated a claim

Summary of this case from Rutherford v. Westchester Cnty.

holding that, on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b), the district court must take as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint

Summary of this case from LARSON v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY

holding that inmate stated a cause of action when "alleging that solely because of his religious beliefs he was denied . . . privileges enjoyed by other prisoners"

Summary of this case from Sutton v. Stewart

reversing dismissal of § 1983 claim challenging discrimination on the basis of prisoner's religious beliefs

Summary of this case from Gilmore v. People of the State of California, Page 987

In Cooper, the prisoner alleged that, solely because of his religious beliefs, he had been denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and had been denied other privileges enjoyed by his fellow prisoners.

Summary of this case from McCarthy v. Bronson

In Cooper, the prisoner alleged that, solely because of his religious beliefs, he had been denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and had been denied other privileges enjoyed by his fellow prisoners.

Summary of this case from Preiser v. Rodriguez

In Cooper, the prisoner alleged that, solely because of his religious beliefs, he had been denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and had been denied other privileges enjoyed by his fellow prisoners.

Summary of this case from Wright v. Cuyler

In Cooper v. Pate, 1964, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner who alleged that solely because of his religious beliefs he had been denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and had been denied privileges enjoyed by other prisoners had stated a cause of action which it was error to dismiss.

Summary of this case from Barlow v. Amiss

In Cooper v. Pate, 1964, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030, the Supreme Court held that refusal to permit a prisoner access to religious publications stated a cause of action.

Summary of this case from Neal v. State of Georgia

In Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1964), the Supreme Court held that a prisoner stated a cause of action in alleging that he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and was, because of his religious beliefs, denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners. While Cooper could conceivably be thought to be grounded in either free exercise of religion or equal protection, it has consistently been interpreted as proceeding on free exercise grounds.

Summary of this case from Nolan v. Fitzpatrick

In Cooper it was held that an inmate of a state prison who alleged that he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners solely because of his religious beliefs alleged a cause of action immune to summary dismissal.

Summary of this case from Brown v. Peyton

directing the Court to accept as true all complaint allegations when it makes its preliminary screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Summary of this case from Cook v. Artus

In Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964), an inmate brought an action against his prison's warden under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners solely because of his religious beliefs.

Summary of this case from Muhammad v. Dep't of Navy

directing the Court to accept as true all complaint allegations when it makes its preliminary screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Summary of this case from Washington v. Crowley

In Cooper[ v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1964)], the prisoner alleged that, solely because of his religious beliefs, he had been denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and had been denied other privileges enjoyed by his fellow prisoners.

Summary of this case from Fritz v. Colorado

stating that on a 12(b) motion, the court must accept the allegations within the complaint as true

Summary of this case from Cook v. Domino's Pizza L.L.C

stating that on a Rule 12(b) motion, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint

Summary of this case from Graham Webb International Limited v. Gordon
Case details for

Cooper v. Pate

Case Details

Full title:COOPER v . PATE, WARDEN

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jun 22, 1964

Citations

378 U.S. 546 (1964)
84 S. Ct. 1733

Citing Cases

Preiser v. Rodriguez

The respondents place a great deal of reliance on our recent decisions upholding the right of state prisoners…

Groves v. State

In light of the procedural posture of this case, the following recitation is drawn principally from…