# Erickson v. Pardus

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 4, 2007 · 551 U.S. 89

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435054

## Case

- **Full name:** Erickson v. Pardus Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 4, 2007
- **Citations:** 551 U.S. 89; 127 S. Ct. 2197; 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 6814
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Thomas
- **Judges:** Thomas
- **Cited by:** 36,563 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported abrogated on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435054

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, in considering a motion to dismiss, a court “must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the 2 Moreover, even if Ellison were binding precedent on this Court, its holding comports with the decision of the Magistrate Judge. It is undisputed tha…
- concluding that the petitioner had stated an Eighth Amendment claim where he alleged that prison officials had endangered his life by removing him from hepatitis C medication shortly after he began a year-long treatment regimen, that he was still in need of the treatment, and …
- stating that under Rule 8(a)(2), “[sjpecific facts are not necessary,” and that a complaint need only “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955) (internal quotation marks omi…
- holding that when deciding a motion to dismiss based upon a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), this Court must assume that all undisputed facts alleged in the complaint are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant’s favor.
- explaining that “a document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’” and “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be 27 held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 28 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976))

## Opinion text

Justice Thomas,
dissenting.
I have repeatedly stated that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment historically concerned only injuries relating to a criminal sentence. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 861 (1994) (opinion concurring in judgment); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U. S. 25, 42 (1993) (dissenting opinion); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U. S. 1, 18-20 (1992) (same). But even applying the Court’s flawed Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, “I would draw the line at actual, serious injuries and reject the claim that exposure to the risk of injury can violate the Eighth Amendment.” Helling, supra, at 42 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Consistent with these views, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435054. Public record. Not legal advice.