J. FERBER COLEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
COURTLAND C. PEYTON, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE VIRGINIA STATE PENITENTIARY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court should have provided the petitioner with an opportunity to amend his petition or offered him counsel, rather than denying it without an evidentiary hearing.
A prisoner filed a pro se petition alleging prison officials interfered with his mail and denied him access to the courts. The district court denied t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the district court's denial, without an evidential hearing, of the petitioner’s pro se petition requesting an order commanding the prison officials of the Commonwealth of Virginia to cease and desist from interfering with his rights to use the United States mails. The prisoner’s petition alleges in substance that the respondent has refused to mail his letters addressed to the N.A.A.C.P. and the Office of the Attorney General of the United States seeking legal assistance. In addition he asserts that some enclosures were extracted by prison authorities without his knowledge or approval from certain of his letters which were mailed. Finally, the petitioner claims that he “is being denied his right of access to the courts” and that he has been “subjected to personal reprisals” for seeking to acquire counsel to assert his rights under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3).
Some of these allegations are concededly rather vague and general,, and the petition contains no particularized statement of background facts and conduct. However, we feel that claims of legal substance should not be forfeited because of a failure to state them with technical precision. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 502, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (separate opinion of Frankfurter, J.). Coleman's petition alleges nonfrivolous matters which, if true, entitle him to the requested equitable relief.
We think the district court should either offer the petitioner counsel to assist him in amending his petition or afford him an opportunity to particularize his allegations. The court may then consider whether the petition sufficiently supports its general allegations of non-frivolous matters to justify an evidential hearing.
Vacated and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. Carlson, 488 F.2d 619 (7th Cir. 1973)
-
Martin v. Commonwealth OF Va., 349 F.2d 781 (4th Cir. 1965)
-
Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526 (4th Cir. 1970)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1953)