Hepperle v. Johnston, 76-2210
| Decision Date | 20 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2210,76-2210 |
| Citation | 544 F.2d 201 |
| Parties | James HEPPERLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. JOHNSTON et al., Defendants, Southern Methodist University, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James Hepperle, pro se.
Frank J. Scurlock, Univ. Atty., Robert F. Ritchie, John H. McElhaney, Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before GODBOLD, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
This case is presently before us to review a decision of the district court granting a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case must be remanded for further proceedings hereinafter set out.
On March 3, 1975, the plaintiff, James Hepperle, appearing pro se filed this diversity suit against, inter alia, the defendant, Southern Methodist University (SMU). Plaintiff alleged that he had been slandered and libeled by SMU and that it threatened to further publish its slander if he filed suit. The plaintiff specifically complained of a conversation which allegedly occurred on February 5, 1974, and of the fact that SMU allegedly maintained a libelous file on him.
On April 4, 1975, SMU moved for a more definite statement on the part of the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On May 5, 1975, prior to a ruling on SMU's motion, the plaintiff filed a "preliminary answer to defendant SMU's motion for more definitive statement, and (a) motion for discovery." Therein, plaintiff revealed that he had been aware of the fact that SMU maintained a file on him since 1971. On this same day the district court granted SMU's motion for a more definite statement. Thus, on May 20, 1975, the plaintiff further expanded on his contentions in a "preliminary answer to 'order upon motion of Southern Methodist University for a more definite statement.' " In this document the plaintiff stated that he believed "that SMU slandered me with University Park police and with Dallas police in slanderously alleging that I am a dope pusher." Furthermore, plaintiff asserted that it was his belief that SMU had further published parts of the allegedly libelous file to SMU students and their relatives. The plaintiff maintained that production of SMU's file on him was necessary before he could more specifically set out instances of SMU's publication of the alleged libel and slander.
On August 19, 1975, the district court sua sponte ordered SMU dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to state a cause of action. The district court noted that the plaintiff admittedly had known of the existence of the allegedly libelous and slanderous file on him maintained by SMU since 1973. The Court thus held that "the statute of limitations has run on the mere presence of the file and its inter office use as, according to Plaintiff's own admissions, it has been in existence since 1973." The case is before us to review this decision of the district court.
Before dismissing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a court must be satisfied "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). In addition, a trial judge is to employ less stringent standards in assessing pro se pleadings such as those filed by the plaintiff here than would be used to judge the final product of lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Under these guidelines we conclude that dismissal of the complaint in this case was improper, and we must remand to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to bolster his claims with proof.
Article 5524 of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes provides in part:
There shall be commenced and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. Cannatella
...immigration officer.13 See 8 U.S.C. Secs. 1221-1230 (1970 & 1985 Supp.).14 Ortega, 796 F.2d at 768-69.15 See, e.g., Hepperle v. Johnston, 544 F.2d 201, 202 (5th Cir.1977) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).16 See Elliott v. Perez, 751 F.2d 1472, 1479-82......
-
Doe v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
...indicated that Doe could not prove any set of facts that could give rise to a timely action. See, e.g., Hepperle v. Johnston, 544 F.2d 201, 202-03 (5th Cir.1976) (per curiam). Although the majority concedes, as it must, that the district court was obliged to resolve any ambiguity in the com......
-
Scott v. 360 Mortg. Grp., LLC
...in this case. See Lampkin-Asam v. Volusia Cty. Sch. Bd., 261 F. App'x 274, 276-77 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hepperle v. Johnston, 544 F.2d 201, 202 (5th Cir. 1976)). However, the Court may not act as counsel for a party or rewrite deficient pleadings, and pro se litigants must still adhere ......
-
Toole v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
...the allegations demonstrate that the plaintiff does not have a claim. Bruce v. Wade, 537 F.2d 850, 852 (5th Cir.1976); Hepperle v. Johnston, 544 F.2d 201 (5th Cir.1976). IV. A. Failure to Warn Claim. 1. The FCLAA's Scope. The plaintiff contends that Brown & Williamson has violated the law b......