HAINES
v.
KERNER ET AL.
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.
Before a case is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, the plaintiff should be allowed to offer evidence supporting his claims. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that Haines had a right to present evidence of the alleged harm he suffered before his case was dismissed. Without such an opportunity, there could be no certainty that there was no set of facts to support the plaintiff’s claims that would entitle him to relief. Justices Lewis F. Powell, Jr. and William H. Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Francis Haines was placed in solitary confinement for 15 days because he hit another inmate over the head with a shovel during a confrontation. Haines…
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 Discretion Of Prison Officials cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Petitioner, an inmate at the Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois, commenced this action against the Governor of Illinois and other state officers and prison officials under the Civil Rights Act of 1871,17 Stat. 13, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3), seeking to recover damages for claimed injuries and deprivation of rights while incarcerated under a judgment not challenged here. Petitioner’s pro se complaint was premised on alleged action of prison officials placing him in solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure after he had struck another inmate on the head with a shovel following a verbal altercation. The assault by petitioner on another inmate is not denied. Petitioner’s pro se complaint included general allegations of physical injuries suffered while in disciplinary confinement and denial of due process in the steps leading to that confinement. The claimed physical suffering was aggravation of a preexisting foot injury and a circulatory ailment caused by forcing him to sleep on the floor of his cell with only blankets.
The District Court granted respondents’ motion under Rule 12 (b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, suggesting that only under exceptional circumstances should courts inquire into the internal operations of state penitentiaries and concluding that petitioner had failed to show a deprivation of federally protected rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing that prison officials are vested with “wide discretion” in disciplinary matters. We granted certiorari and appointed counsel to represent petitioner. The only issue now before us is petitioner’s contention that the District Court erred in dismissing his pro se complaint without allowing him to present evidence on his claims.
Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. 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 by lawyers, it appears “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F. 2d 774 (CA2 1944).
Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of petitioner’s allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (1225 total)
-
Barrett v. City OF Margate, 743 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…dards that the court had previously explained, the trial court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice. In the history of jurisprudence, pro se litigants have frequently been granted leniency in technical matters. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Dismissing an action with prejudice due to defective pleading is not proper unless the plaintiff has been given an opportunity to amend. See Kairalla v. John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Found., 534 So. 2d 7…1 / 2
-
Odell Hall v. KEY, 476 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 424 So. 2d 925, 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Moreover, allegations in a prisoner’s pro se petition should be held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Accordingly, as to appellees Music and Dugger, we affirm the dismissal of Hall’s petition, with directions, however, that leave be granted to allow Hall to amend his petition. Regarding appellee Key,…1 / 2
-
Kidwell v. Kidwell, 181 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…t review Kid-well’s petition as an appeal. Although pro se litigants are often given leniency on certain procedural technicalities in how they draft motions or request relief, they are still subject to the rules of procedure. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). “Notwithstanding the fundamental principle of allowing pro se litigants procedural latitude, a practice effected to ensure access to the courts for all citizens, pro se litigants are not immune from the rules of…
Previewing 3 of 1225 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1957)
- Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1944)
- Frias v. Nelson, 401 U.S. 1008 (U.S. 1971)