From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haines v. Kerner

U.S.
Jan 13, 1972
404 U.S. 519 (1972)

Summary

holding pro se submissions "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

Summary of this case from Cardona v. Davis

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 70-5025.

Argued December 6, 1971 Decided January 13, 1972

Prisoner's pro se complaint seeking to recover damages for claimed physical injuries and deprivation of rights in imposing disciplinary confinement should not have been dismissed without affording him the opportunity to present evidence on his claims.

427 F.2d 71, reversed and remanded.

Stanley A. Bass, by appointment of the Court, 401 U.S. 1008, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, William B. Turner, Alice Daniel, and Max Stern.

Warren K. Smoot, Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for respondents pro hac vice. With him on the brief were William J. Scott, Attorney General, Joel M. Flaum, First Assistant Attorney General, and James B. Zagel, Morton E. Friedman, and Jayne A. Carr, Assistant Attorneys General.

Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Charles H. Baron for Boston College Center for Corrections and the Law, and by Julian Tepper and Marshall J. Hartman for the National Law Office of the National Legal Aid and Defender Assn.


Petitioner, an inmate at the Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois, commenced this action against the Governor of Illinois and other state officers and prison officials under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3), seeking to recover damages for claimed injuries and deprivation of rights while incarcerated under a judgment not challenged here. Petitioner's pro se complaint was premised on alleged action of prison officials placing him in solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure after he had struck another inmate on the head with a shovel following a verbal altercation. The assault by petitioner on another inmate is not denied. Petitioner's pro se complaint included general allegations of physical injuries suffered while in disciplinary confinement and denial of due process in the steps leading to that confinement. The claimed physical suffering was aggravation of a pre-existing foot injury and a circulatory ailment caused by forcing him to sleep on the floor of his cell with only blankets.

The District Court granted respondents' motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, suggesting that only under exceptional circumstances should courts inquire into the internal operations of state penitentiaries and concluding that petitioner had failed to show a deprivation of federally protected rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing that prison officials are vested with "wide discretion" in disciplinary matters. We granted certiorari and appointed counsel to represent petitioner. The only issue now before us is petitioner's contention that the District Court erred in dismissing his pro se complaint without allowing him to present evidence on his claims.

Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944).

Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of petitioner's allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

MR. JUSTICE POWELL and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

Haines v. Kerner

U.S.
Jan 13, 1972
404 U.S. 519 (1972)

holding pro se submissions "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

Summary of this case from Cardona v. Davis

holding that pro se complaints, "however inartfully pleaded," are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

Summary of this case from May v. United States

holding that allegations in a pro se complaint are to be held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”

Summary of this case from Sama v. Hannigan

holding pro se complaints to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

Summary of this case from Weston v. Illinois Dept. of Human Serv

holding that pleadings filed by pro se litigants are to be held to less stringent standards than pleadings filed by lawyers

Summary of this case from Joseph v. City of Dallas

holding pro se litigants to "less stringent standards" than parties with the aid of counsel

Summary of this case from Rainwater v. Alarcon

holding that pro se complaints drafted by prisoners are not held to the same standards as pleadings drafted by lawyers

Summary of this case from Obriecht v. Raemisch

holding a pro se complaint to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" when determining whether to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim

Summary of this case from McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.

holding that allegations in pro se complaint are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers

Summary of this case from Nardi v. Stewart

holding that courts must liberally construe pro se pleadings

Summary of this case from Ford v. Hubbard

holding that the allegations in a pro se complaint are "h[e]ld to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

Summary of this case from Green v. U.S.

holding pro se complaint to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers

Summary of this case from Allah v. Al-Hafeez

holding pro se pleadings to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers

Summary of this case from Kidd v. District of Columbia

holding pro se complaints to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by counsel

Summary of this case from Prou v. United States

holding allegations contained in a prisoner's pro se complaint to less stringent standards than pleadings written by counsel in reversing a dismissal for failure to state a claim

Summary of this case from Richardson v. U.S.

holding pro se complaint "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Sanchez

holding pleadings filed by pro se parties to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and allowing pro se petitioners to proceed when their briefs, "however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence"

Summary of this case from Grant v. Cuellar

holding pro se complaints "to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by lawyers"

Summary of this case from Lema v. United States

holding petitioner to standards of Conley v. Gibson

Summary of this case from Wells v. Brown

holding pro se plaintiff to less stringent standards of pleading than plaintiff represented by counsel

Summary of this case from Austad v. Risley

holding that a pro se litigant's complaint is to be held "to a less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."

Summary of this case from Reynolds v. O'Gorman

holding pro se complaints "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

Summary of this case from Lopez v. Shrader

holding allegations of a pro se complaint "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

Summary of this case from Martinez v. United States

holding allegations of a pro se complaint "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

Summary of this case from Hernandez v. Pueblo Cnty.

holding allegations of a pro se complaint "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

Summary of this case from Gallagher v. NSA-Nat'l Sec. Agency
Case details for

Haines v. Kerner

Case Details

Full title:HAINES v . KERNER ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 13, 1972

Citations

404 U.S. 519 (1972)
92 S. Ct. 594

Citing Cases

Minix v. Gonzales

Retzlaff, 94 S.W.3d at 653. A pro se inmate's petition should be viewed with liberality and patience and is…

Lindsey v. U.S.

Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs' complaint is substantially identical to those filed in numerous…