Holloway v. Lockhart, No. 85-1961
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before McMILLIAN and BOWMAN; BOWMAN |
| Citation | 792 F.2d 760 |
| Parties | Winston HOLLOWAY, Appellant, v. A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1961 |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1986 |
Page 760
v.
A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee.
Eighth Circuit.
Decided June 11, 1986.
Page 761
Martin Thomas, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
A. Carter Hardage, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, and HANSON, * Senior District Judge.
BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Winston Holloway, an inmate at the Tucker Maximum Security Unit in Arkansas, filed this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action alleging that the Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) deprived him of his AM/FM radio and of carbon paper that he used in drafting legal pleadings and documents. Holloway alleges in his complaint that he was deprived of his radio and carbon paper without due process of law because the ADC previously allowed him to possess both items but now classifies them as contraband for no reason. Holloway further alleges that his "forced separation" from his radio violated a settlement agreement reached in a previous case against the ADC. He requests declaratory and injunctive relief.
The ADC moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The District Court granted the motion, finding that the complaint merely stated a disagreement "with prison administrators concerning what constitutes contraband" and concluding that the deprivation did not amount to a constitutional violation. Holloway v. Lockhart, No. PB-C-84-423, slip op. at 3 (E.D.Ark. July 31, 1985). Because we believe that Holloway's complaint states a claim that if proved would entitle him to relief, we hold that dismissal was inappropriate at this stage of the litigation and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In assessing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a court should accord a pro se complaint a liberal construction, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), and should not dismiss the complaint "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
Page 762
would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). The court must presume that the factual allegations of the complaint are true and accord all reasonable inferences from those facts to the non-moving...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. McClain, No. 88-6051-CV-SJ-6-P.
...the factual allegations in the complaint as true. See Valiant-Bey v. Morris, 829 F.2d 1441, 1443 (8th Cir.1987); Holloway v. Lockhart, 792 F.2d 760, 762 (8th Cir.1986). The Court may dismiss the allegation only if it is clear that plaintiff would be unable to prove any set of facts in suppo......
-
U.S.A v. Farm, CIV. 09-5049-JLV
...the [UnitedPage 5States] can prove no set of facts in support of [its] claim which would entitle [it] to relief.' " Holloway v. Lockhart, 792 F.2d 760, 761 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). "It is well-established that an amended complaint supercedes an o......
-
Wright v. Caspari, No. 91-2007C(5).
...plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support the claim(s). Ouzts v. Cummins, 825 F.2d 1276, 1277 (8th Cir.1987); Holloway v. Lockhart, 792 F.2d 760, 761-62 (8th It is well-established that prisoners are entitled to the protections of the Due Process Clause and may not be deprived of life,......
-
Indian Land Capital Co. v. Infrastructure Dev. Coop., Civ. 21-5015-JLV
...that the [plaintiff] can prove no set of facts in support of [its] claim which would entitle [it] to relief.' ” Holloway v. Lockhart, 792 F.2d 760, 761 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). Rule 9(b) requires that “[i]n alleging fraud . . . a party must state......
-
Williams v. McClain, No. 88-6051-CV-SJ-6-P.
...the factual allegations in the complaint as true. See Valiant-Bey v. Morris, 829 F.2d 1441, 1443 (8th Cir.1987); Holloway v. Lockhart, 792 F.2d 760, 762 (8th Cir.1986). The Court may dismiss the allegation only if it is clear that plaintiff would be unable to prove any set of facts in suppo......
-
U.S.A v. Farm, CIV. 09-5049-JLV
...the [UnitedPage 5States] can prove no set of facts in support of [its] claim which would entitle [it] to relief.' " Holloway v. Lockhart, 792 F.2d 760, 761 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). "It is well-established that an amended complaint supercedes an o......
-
Wright v. Caspari, No. 91-2007C(5).
...plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support the claim(s). Ouzts v. Cummins, 825 F.2d 1276, 1277 (8th Cir.1987); Holloway v. Lockhart, 792 F.2d 760, 761-62 (8th It is well-established that prisoners are entitled to the protections of the Due Process Clause and may not be deprived of life,......
-
Indian Land Capital Co. v. Infrastructure Dev. Coop., Civ. 21-5015-JLV
...that the [plaintiff] can prove no set of facts in support of [its] claim which would entitle [it] to relief.' ” Holloway v. Lockhart, 792 F.2d 760, 761 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). Rule 9(b) requires that “[i]n alleging fraud . . . a party must state......