The Clearly Established Law as Determined
by the Supreme Court
Read these cases, know these cases.
Quote the relevant holdings in these cases to the judge in your case.
Win your case by controling the judge with the law established
in these cases; and, the facts you have established in your case
Pro Se Pleadings
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.
DISMISSAL OF YOUR CLAIM
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
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
Frivolous or Malicious Lawsuits
A provision in the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. 1915(d), authorizes courts to dismiss
an in forma pauperis claim if, inter alia, "the action is frivolous or malicious."
The District Court dismissed the complaint sua sponte as frivolous under 1915(d) on the grounds that Williams
had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Court of Appeals, holding that the District Court had wrongly equated the standard for failure to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6) with the more lenient standard for frivolousness under 1915(d), which permits
dismissal only if a petitioner cannot make any rational argument in law or fact entitling him to relief.
Judicial Recusal
It is axiomatic that "[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process."
In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133
Finding that "no man can be a judge in his own case," and "no man is
permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome," id., at 136
Under our precedents there are objective standards that require recusal when "the probability
of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable."
Applying those precedents, we find that, in all the circumstances of this case, due process requires recusal
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. 129 S. Ct. 2253 (Jube 8, 2009
The Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule requiring recusal when a judge has "a direct, personal,
substantial, pecuniary interest" in a case, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 523, but this Court has also identified
additional instances which, as an objective matter, require recusal where "the probability of actual bias onthe
part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable," Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S. 35, 47.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT A judgment will be granted and upheld “only if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party against
whom it is entered, demonstrates that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the
judgment was warranted as a matter of law.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)
THE JUDGE'S DUTY
All Courts have the affirmative duty to guard and
enforce every right secured by the Constitution, I.e.
The Supreme Court Has Explicitly Held:
"Upon the state courts, equally with the courts of the Union, rests the obligation to guard and enforce every
right secured by the Constitution"
Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935)
Please send us any Supreme Court cases you feel are relevant or
helpful to pro se litigants
THANKS!