Haines v. Kerner 8212 5025
| Decision Date | 13 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 70,70 |
| Citation | 92 S.Ct. 594,30 L.Ed.2d 652,404 U.S. 519 |
| Parties | Francis HAINES, Petitioner, v. Otto J. KERNER, former Governor, State of Illinois, et al. —5025 |
| Court | U.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.
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
-
Griffin v. Padula
...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
...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
...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
...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......
-
Navigating the Nuances of Self-Represented Plaintiffs
...during the course of litigation. Federal courts take a similar approach in how they treat pro se plaintiffs. (See Haines v. Kerner (1972) 404 U.S. 519, 521 (per curium) (pro se complaints are held to “less stringent” standards than those drafted by attorneys).) Therefore, while filing motio......
-
Where Is the Strike Zone? Arguing for a Uniformly Narrow Interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's "three Strikes" Rule
...159, 160 (5th Cir. 1979) ("It is axiomatic that courts are required to liberally construe pro se complaints." (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972))).213. See Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 2015).214. See id. at 1189 ("[W]e have held that a prisoner need only m......
-
VI. Section Claims
...drafted by lawyers," and should be liberally construed in the plaintiff's favor. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).[267] . 507 U.S. 144, 163 (1993).[268] . See, e.g., Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2005); Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986 (8th C......
-
Review Proceedings
...(7th Cir. 1997) (sanction imposed when petitioner raised same arguments in fourth challenge to conviction). 3047. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam) (pro se complaint held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”); see, e.g. , Butterwor......
-
The pleading problem.
...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. ......