# Haines v. Kerner

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 22, 1972 · 404 U.S. 519

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/108432

## Case

- **Full name:** HAINES v. KERNER Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 22, 1972
- **Citations:** 404 U.S. 519; 92 S. Ct. 594; 30 L. Ed. 2d 652; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 99
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Powell, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 26,900 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/108432

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that pro se complaints, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears “‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in…
- holding that a 662, 676 (2009); Farrel v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470, 484 (2d Cir. pro se litigant's complaint is to be held “to a less stringent 2006). Conclusory allegations without any supporting factual standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
- holding that a. pro se litigant’s complaint is to be held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings, drafted by lawyers.”
- holding that allegations in a pro se complaint are held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"
- concluding that, when determining which parties are required to consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c

## Opinion text

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.
*520
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
*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).
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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/108432. Public record. Not legal advice.