Pratt v. Tarr
Decision Date | 27 September 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 05-4470.,05-4470. |
Citation | 464 F.3d 730 |
Parties | Anthony PRATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David TARR, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Anthony Pratt, Pine Knot, KY, pro se.
Peggy A. Lautenschlager, Adrian Dresel-Velasquez, Office of the Attorney General, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, WI, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before BAUER, POSNER, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff in this state prisoner's civil rights suit claims that prison officials violated his constitutional right to access to the courts. His pro se complaint alleges that they "den[ied] him adequate scribe materials, a desk, a chair and personal legal property to defend pending litigation in state and federal courts, which caused plaintiff's cases to now be lost and/or dismissed"; they "violate[d] access to the courts' standards by refusing to release lawbooks, briefs, transcripts, case law materials, [and] carbon paper." The district judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to plead a claim of denial of access to the courts with the requisite particularity — failed to "provide more than general allegations that defendants hindered his ability to pursue these or any other non-frivolous legal actions."
In so ruling the judge relied primarily on Ortloff v. United States, 335 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir.2003), which holds that to avert dismissal on the pleadings the plaintiff in a denial of access case "must make specific allegations as to the prejudice suffered because of the defendants' alleged conduct." He must do this
Ortloff in turn relied solely on Martin v. Davies, 917 F.2d 336 (7th Cir.1990), which had been decided before the Supreme Court, in Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993), made emphatically clear that federal courts are not to supplement the list in Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of claims that must be pleaded with particularity. The Court repeated this Diktat in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 and n. 3, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 417-18 and n. 15, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002), as we and the other courts of appeals have done repeatedly since Leatherman. E.g., Christopher v. Buss, 384 F.3d 879, 881 (7th Cir.2004); Thomson v. Washington, 362 F.3d 969, 971 (7th Cir.2004); Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1007 (7th Cir.2002); Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir.2002); Payton v. Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center, 184 F.3d 623, 627 (7th Cir.1999); Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 346-48 (4th Cir.2005); Swann v. Southern Health Partners, Inc., 388 F.3d 834, 836-38 (11th Cir.2004). In Kolupa v. Roselle Park District, 438 F.3d 713, 715 (7th Cir.2006), we said: "Any decision declaring `this complaint is deficient because it does not allege X' is a candidate for summary reversal, unless X is on the list in Rule 9(b)." We repeated this admonition in Simpson v. Nickel, 450 F.3d 303, 305 (7th Cir.2006). But old habits die hard.
The list in Rule 9(b) of claims that must be pleaded with particularity does not include claims of denial of access to the courts, and so in Nance v. Vieregge, 147 F.3d 589, 590-91 (7th Cir.1998), we had held (as noted in Thomson v. Washington, supra, 362 F.3d at 971) that there is indeed no heightened-pleading requirement for such claims. And shortly after the decision in Ortloff, another panel of this court had stated the pleading requirement for a denial of access claim thus: "In order to avoid dismissal ... [plaintiff] therefore had to allege that he had a non-frivolous legal claim that was frustrated or impeded by [defendant's] failure to assist him in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers and that he was harmed by [defendant's] action (or lack thereof)." Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862, 868 (7th Cir.2004). This is the language of notice pleading, not, as in Ortloff, of fact pleading, notice pleading being all that is required of claims that don't fall within the scope of Rule 9(b).
Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir.2006), recognized the tension between Ortloff and Lehn and sought to dissolve it. We said that the pleading standard applicable to denial of access claims is indeed notice pleading, but we added that (emphasis added); cf. Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 442-43 (7th Cir.2006) (citations omitted) () ; Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 233-34 and n. 6 (3d Cir.2004).
In other words, it is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that the prison did not supply him with writing materials. That wouldn't give the prison a clue as to what injury the plaintiff was alleging, and the prison would therefore have no idea how to go about preparing its defense. To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint would have to go on and allege that as a result of the prison's action the plaintiff had lost a case or suffered...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hobbs v. Cappelluti
...the courts. In addition, he fails to allege how his ability to bring the present lawsuit was deprived or diminished. See Pratt v. Tarr, 464 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir. 2006) ("[W]hen a plaintiff alleges a denial of the right to access-to-courts, he must usually plead specific prejudice to state......
-
Rangel v. Reynolds
...why courts require the plaintiff to allege the parties, the general purpose, and the approximate date of the conspiracy. Pratt v. Tarr, 464 F.3d 730, 732 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Loubser, 440 F.3d at 442-43). In addition, the Seventh Circuit has succinctly described the pleading requirement......
-
Vasquez v. Raemisch
...and allege that as a result of the prison's action the plaintiff had lost a case or suffered some other legal setback. Pratt v. Tarr, 464 F.3d 730, 732 (7th Cir. 2006). Because petitioner does not allege that the confiscation of his legal manual hindered his ability to litigate a case, this......
-
In Re: Jack Weichman
...must provide fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests so that adefendant can prepare his defense. Pratt v. Tarr, 464 F.3d 730, 733 (7th Cir.2006). Second, the allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a " ......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...prisoner’s legal mail outside prisoner’s presence is constitutional violation requiring no further proof of injury); Pratt v. Tarr, 464 F.3d 730, 733 (7th Cir. 2006) (possible constitutional violation because prison’s failure to provide adequate legal materials led to loss of court cases); ......