Haines v. Kerner 8212 5025

Decision Date13 January 1972
Docket NumberNo. 70,70
PartiesFrancis HAINES, Petitioner, v. Otto J. KERNER, former Governor, State of Illinois, et al. —5025
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

See 405 U.S. 948, 92 S.Ct. 963.

Stanley A. Bass, New York City, for petitioner.

Warren K. Smoot, Chicago, Ill., for respondents, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.

PER CURIAM.

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 preexisting 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, 427 F.2d 71, 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46298 cases
  • Griffin v. Padula
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 6 Julio 2007
    ...118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en, banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1177......
  • Thomas v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 6 Septiembre 2011
    ...Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983); Boyc......
  • Martin v. DELAWARE LAW SCH. OF WIDENER UNIVERSITY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 23 Diciembre 1985
    ...standards for formal pleadings required of pro se civil rights litigants enunciated by the Supreme Court in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Gray v. Creamer, 465 F.2d 179, 182 n. 2 (3rd Cir. 1972). 7 The Court notes that Plaintiff's allegations of a consp......
  • Rudenko v Costello
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 20 Marzo 2002
    ...clear, however, that each of these petitions states at least one valid federal constitutional claim. See generally Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam) (pleading of pro se litigant is to be construed liberally). Thus, one of the Slack questions to be answered where the di......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • The pleading problem.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 62 No. 5, May 2010
    • 1 Mayo 2010
    ...37,137 6 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) 36,980 7 Bell Atl. Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 23,872 8 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) 23,735 9 Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 23,238 658 (1978) 10 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) 22,168 11 United States v. ......
  • Chapter VIII. Decisions of National Tribunals
    • United States
    • United Nations Juridical Yearbook No. 2001, January 2001
    • 1 Enero 2001
    ...se, the court should hold the Complaint to a less stringent standard than it would a pleading drafted by an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). See also Richardson v. United States, 193 F.3d 545, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1999); United States v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243, 1247 (D.C. Cir.......
  • Exploring methods to improve management and fairness in pro se cases: a study of the pro se docket in the Southern District of New York.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 30 No. 1, November 2002
    • 1 Noviembre 2002
    ...on [procedural] technicalities."). (4.) See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). As the Court unanimously held in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyer......
  • How Should Legal Ethics Rules Apply When Artificial Intelligence Assists Pro Se Litigants?
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics No. 35-4, October 2022
    • 1 Octubre 2022
    ..., Law. Man. on Prof. Conduct (ABA/BNA) § 301:401.30 (2021). 191. 7A C.J.S. Attorney & Client § 247 (2021). 192. Id. ; Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 2022] WHEN AI ASSISTS PRO SE LITIGANTS 575 leniency serves to “protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of rights due......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
    • United States
    • US Code 2019 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Civil Procedure For the United States District Courts [1] Title III. Pleadings Andmotions
    • 1 Enero 2019
    ...court has sufficient discretion to take account of the special circumstances that often arise in pro se situations. See Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 (1972).The provision in the original rule for striking pleadings and motions as sham and false has been deleted. The passage has rarely been ......
  • 28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 11 Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
    • United States
    • US Code 2020 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Civil Procedure For the United States District Courts [1] Title III. Pleadings and Motions
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...court has sufficient discretion to take account of the special circumstances that often arise in pro se situations. See Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 (1972).The provision in the original rule for striking pleadings and motions as sham and false has been deleted. The passage has rarely been ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT