Martin v. Johnson, 72-1730.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1730.,72-1730. |
| Citation | 471 F.2d 704 |
| Parties | Thomas MARTIN et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. Perry M. JOHNSON, Warden, State Prison, Jackson, Michigan, et al., Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Thomas Martin, in pro. per.
John Ballard, in pro. per.
Euliss L. Carter, in pro. per.
Willie B. Brown, Jr., in pro. per.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen. of Mich., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Mich., on brief, for respondents-appellees.
Before MILLER, KENT and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the District Court's dismissal of the petitioners' suit for injunction and for damages in which there were allegations of violations of the Civil Rights of the petitioners. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. From an examination of the District Court file it appears that the petitioners were authorized to proceed in forma pauperis. Thereafter the service of process upon the respondent was delayed to permit a different District Judge to determine whether the action was frivolous and subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Form questionnaires were submitted to each of the petitioners and were completed in such manner that no substantial additional allegations of fact were included.
By some means, not apparent from the file, the District Judge obtained access to the records of the prison where the petitioners had been confined, and to the records of the state trial court by which the petitioners had been convicted and sentenced. Again we note that the respondent was never served with process and filed no answer, motion or other responsive pleading to the complaint.
The District Judge recognized that this Court does not encourage dismissal of a complaint without notice to the plaintiffs or without affording them an opportunity to be heard. Brown v. Strickler, 422 F.2d 1000 (6 Cir. 1970).
The trial judge relied upon an opinion handed down in the Eastern District of Michigan, Kregger v. Posner, 248 F. Supp. 804 (E.D.Mich.1966), in which it was stated, at page 806:
"In an action for damages under the Civil Rights Act, the plaintiff must allege highly specific facts."
Since that time the Supreme Court of the United States has decided Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), where in a per curiam opinion the Court held:
"We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salibra v. Supreme Court of Ohio
...for admission to the bar without examination except those contained in subsection (e).3 Now rule VI(5).4 See Martin v. Johnson, 471 F.2d 704, 705 (6th Cir.1973) ("this Court does not encourage dismissal of a complaint without notice to the plaintiffs or without affording them an opportunity......
-
Schwartz v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.
...before us, we feel that the better exercise of discretion is to treat the motions as ones for summary judgment. See Martin v. Johnson, 471 F.2d 704 (6th Cir. 1973); Thompson v. New York Central R. R., 361 F.2d 137, 138-139 (2d Cir. 1966); Gager v. "Bob Seidel," 112 U.S.App.D.C. 135, 300 F.2......
-
Tingler v. Marshall
...respond, was proper. We adhere to our previous statements in Brown v. Strickler, 422 F.2d 1000 (6th Cir.1970) and Martin v. Johnson, 471 F.2d 704 (6th Cir.1973) that such sua sponte dismissals are not favored and we vacate the district court's judgment and remand the On November 25, 1980, t......
-
Goff v. Jones
...based on material which is not within the public knowledge and which has been neither pleaded nor offered in evidence. See Martin v. Johnson, 6 Cir. 1973, 471 F.2d 704. We therefore reverse the judgment below and remand for further proceedings. We intimate no view as to what will be the fin......