Haines v. Kerner 8212 5025

Decision Date13 January 1972
Docket NumberNo. 70,70
CitationHaines v. Kerner 8212 5025, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)
PartiesFrancis HAINES, Petitioner, v. Otto J. KERNER, former Governor, State of Illinois, et al. —5025
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

See405 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, and28 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...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
47511 cases
  • Griffin v. Padula
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • July 6, 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
    • September 6, 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
    • December 23, 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
    • March 20, 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......
  • Get Started for Free
14 books & journal articles
  • II. Elements of the Section 1983 Claim, Functional Role of Section 1983, Pleading, and Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • Sword and Shield: A Practical Approach to Section 1983 Litigation (ABA) Chapter 1 Fundamentals of Section 1983 Litigation
    • Invalid date
    ...construed in the plaintiff's favor. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). District courts should "read the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that th......
  • The pleading problem.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 62 No. 5, May 2010
    • May 1, 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. ......
  • VI. Section Claims
    • United States
    • Municipal Law Deskbook (ABA) Chapter 5 Liability for Wrongful Acts
    • Invalid date
    ...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......
  • 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
    ...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......
  • Get Started for Free