Haines v. Kerner 8212 5025
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Citation | 92 S.Ct. 594,30 L.Ed.2d 652,404 U.S. 519 |
| Docket Number | No. 70,70 |
| Parties | Francis HAINES, Petitioner, v. Otto J. KERNER, former Governor, State of Illinois, et al. —5025 |
| Decision Date | 13 January 1972 |
v.
Otto J. KERNER, former Governor, State of Illinois, et al.
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.
Page 520
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffin v. Padula
...S.Ct. 1728, 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, 5......
-
Thomas v. Colvin
...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); Boyce v. Al......
-
Martin v. DELAWARE LAW SCH. OF WIDENER UNIVERSITY, Civ. A. No. 85-53.
...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, 2
...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......
-
Chapter VIII. Decisions of National Tribunals
...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.......
-
NON-MERIT-BASED TESTS HAVE NO MERIT: RESTORING DISTRICT COURT DISCRETION UNDER S. 1915(E) (1).
...see also Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (requiring prisons to provide inmates better access to legal materials); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (per (20) See Eisenberg, supra note 15, at 425-27; Nichol, supra note 16, at 338-40 (first citing United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 ......
-
IN HONOR OF STEPHEN BURBANK: BEYOND THE FOREST AND THE TREES.
...(22) See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) ("The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed."); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding a pro se complaint to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by (23) 28 U.S.C. [section] 2072(a). (24) ......