ROBERT HARRY ESSER, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER WELLER (GUARD) STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION HUNTINGDON, PENNSYLVANIA
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 plaintiff's complaint, containing broad and conclusory statements without specific factual allegations, failed to meet the required standard for a civil rights action.
An inmate sued a prison guard, alleging harassment, mental distress from cell assignment, and seizure of his notes of testimony. The district court di…
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 Civil Rights Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Hunting-don Correctional Institution, has appealed from an order of the district court dismissing his civil rights action against Walter Weller, a guard, as frivolous and without merit.
The complaint broadly charges, inter alia, that Weller harassed the plaintiff by threatening him; that he caused mental distress by assigning the plaintiff to a cell below the cell of a boister ous prisoner; and that Weller took away plaintiff’s notes of testimony.
This court has stressed that complaints in civil rights cases must “contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim . . . and the relief . . .” sought. F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and (3); Gaito v. Ellenbogen, 425 F. 2d 845 (3d Cir. 1970).
The broad and conclusory statements made in plaintiff’s complaint are not supported by specific factual allegations.1 Therefore, the complaint fails to meet the test set forth in Ne-grich v. Hohn, 379 F. 2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967), that a complaint must specifically state facts in support of its conclusions in order to avoid a motion to dismiss. See Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F. 2d 1270 (3d Cir. 1970).
The order of the district court will be affirmed.
. Plaintiff’s complaint contains the allegation that “Defendant . . . took away plaintiff’s Legal-document (Notes of Testimony), for same was in plaintiff’s personal belongings prior to plaintiff sitting on the bench in the Guard-Room.” This may have occurred on or about May 2, 1971, when plaintiff was being “com-mittecl to the punishment block.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Curtis v. Angus Russell Everette, 489 F.2d 516 (3d Cir. 1973)
-
Polite v. Diehl, 507 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1974)
-
Martin v. Merola, 532 F.2d 191 (2d Cir. 1976)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270 (3d Cir. 1970)
- Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967)
- Gaito v. Honorable Henry Ellenbogen, 425 F.2d 845 (3d Cir. 1970)