CAP S. MCELROY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
KAREN SWAN ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
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 statutory jurisdictional amount required in diversity cases does not apply to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued city policemen and a policeman's wife, alleging a conspiracy resulting in his unlawful confinement. The District Co…
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 Pro Se Litigant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This action was filed April 9, 1971, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two days later the District Court, acting sua sponte, dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction, for the reason that plaintiff claims damages amounting to only $501.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued two city policemen and the wife of a city policeman, charging a conspiracy resulting in the confinement of plaintiff in jail for nine days, in lieu of payment of a fine.
The statutory jurisdictional amount required in diversity cases does not apply to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, suing for constitutional infringement of a right of personal liberty. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 412 n. 1, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1967); Douglas v. Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 161, 63 S.Ct. 877, 87 L.Ed. 1324 (1943); Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 531, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939); Detroit Edison Co. v. East China Township School District, 378 F. 2d 225, 228 (6th Cir. 1967); Glicker v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission, 160 F. 2d 96, 98 (6th Cir. 1947).
In addition to averring jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaint in the present case also alleged diversity jurisdiction, although showing on its face that plaintiff and all defendants are citizens of Toledo, Ohio. This pro se complaint will be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings prepared by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).
We hold that the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint. Azar v. Conley, 456 F. 2d 1382 (6th Cir., 1972).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972)
- Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1939)
- Jones et ux. v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1968)
- Douglas v. City OF Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1943)
- Azar v. Conley, 456 F.2d 1382 (6th Cir. 1972)
- Glicker v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm'n, 160 F.2d 96 (6th Cir. 1947)
- The Detroit Edison Co. v. E. China Twp. Sch. Dist. NO. 3, 378 F.2d 225 (6th Cir. 1967)