Cooper v. Pate

Decision Date22 June 1964
Docket NumberM,No. 1134,1134
Citation378 U.S. 546,12 L.Ed.2d 1030,84 S.Ct. 1733
PartiesCOOPER v. PATE, Warden. isc
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Alex Elson and Bernard Weisberg, for petitioner.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen. of Illinois, and Raymond S. Sarnow and Edward A. Berman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

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.).

To continue reading

Request your trial
475 cases
  • De Lancie v. Superior Court of State of Cal., San Mateo County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 5, 1979
    ...S.Ct. 854, 35 L.Ed.2d 36 (voting); Cruz v. Beto (1972) 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (religion); Cooper v. Pate (1964) 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 (religion).) Curtailment of the right of private expression, so intimately associated with the meaningful exercis......
  • Procunier v. Martinez 8212 1465
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1974
    ...embodied in any regulation. 1. See, e.g., Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972); Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1964); Brown v. Peyton, 437 F.2d 1228, 1230 (CA4 1971); Rowland v. Sigler, 327 F.Supp. 821, 827 (Neb.), aff'd, 452 F.2d 1......
  • Giuliano v. Everything Yogurt, Inc., No. CV-92-1728.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • April 28, 1993
    ...facts alleged in the complaint as true, Easton v. Sundram, 947 F.2d 1011, 1014-15 (2d Cir.1991) (citing Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1964)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1943, 118 L.Ed.2d 548 (1992), it still appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff......
  • Barr Laboratories, Inc. v. Quantum Pharmics, Inc., No. CV-90-4406.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • July 7, 1993
    ...facts alleged in the complaint as true, Easton v. Sundram, 947 F.2d 1011, 1014-15 (2d Cir. 1991) (citing Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1964)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1943, 118 L.Ed.2d 548 (1992), it still appears "beyond doubt that the plaintif......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 books & journal articles
  • THE HORROR CHAMBER: UNQUALIFIED IMPUNITY IN PRISON.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 93 No. 5, May 2018
    • May 1, 2018
    ...126. (132) See Sharon Dolovich, Forms of Deference in Prison Law, 24 FED. SENT'G REP. 245, 255 n.2 (2012) (identifying Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964) (per curiam), as the first case in which the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner could pursue a claim in federal court under [secti......
  • Conflict comes to roost! The Bureau of Reclamation and the federal Indian trust responsibility.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 31 No. 4, September 2001
    • September 22, 2001
    ...U.S. 564 (1908); United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978); Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976); Arizona v. California, 378 U.S. 546 (290) Id. at 205; see also Cappaert, 426 U.S. at 138-39 (declining to balance the equities to determine ownership of water rights). (291) Un......
  • Where Is the Strike Zone? Arguing for a Uniformly Narrow Interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's "three Strikes" Rule
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 70-3, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 790, 796 (1871).59. Id.60. Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 548-49 (1941).61. Id.62. See Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 546 (1964).63. Cooper v. Pate, 324 F.2d 165, 166 (7th Cir. 1963). 64. Cooper, 378 U.S. at 546.65. See Carol Rice Andrews, A Right of Access ......
  • Report on the Prison Litigation Reform Act: What Have the Courts Decided so Far?
    • United States
    • Prison Journal, The No. 84-3, September 2004
    • September 1, 2004
    ...Cir. 1999)(enbanc).Collins, W. C., & Grant, D. C. (1998). The PrisonLitigation Reform Act. Corrections Today,60(5), 60-62.Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546; 84 S.Ct. 1733; 12 L.Ed.2d1030 (1964).Crouch,B. M., & Marquart, J. W. (1989). An appeal to justice: Litigated reform of Texasprisons.Austin:......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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