Contents     home     Our Mission     prosebar     Judicial Oath of Office     Rampant Judicial Fraud     absolutejudicialimmunity     Judge Complaints     judicial complaint1     ResourcesPage1     CharacterCounts     JudicialAccountability     ResourcesPage2     Delaware     Red Alert     HomeContinued     HallofShame     judicial Immunity     ProSe/law     Contact Us     Access to Justice     accesstojustice2     ProSeResources     effectivelegalwriting     CourtRoomConduct     Pleadings101      
 
 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 99 (U.S., January 13, 1972, Decided ) 

 

OVERVIEW:  The district court improperly dismissed an inmate's action against state officers

 and prison officials because the inmate's allegations were sufficient to require that he be provided

the opportunity to offer evidence in support of his claims.

 
 
 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 [404 U.S. 519, 521]   "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).