No, the court should not have thrown the case out. A lawsuit from someone without a lawyer, especially a prisoner, must be treated more leniently than one written by a professional lawyer. The Supreme Court said that even if Haines's complaint wasn't written well, his story was serious enough that he deserved a chance to present evidence. A judge should only dismiss such a case if it's completely impossible for the person to prove any facts that would let them win. The Court wasn't saying Haines was right, only that he deserved his day in court to try to prove it.

Yes, the lower court was wrong to dismiss Haines' complaint without letting him show evidence. This is because what Haines wrote in his complaint, even if it wasn't written perfectly, is enough that he should get a chance to prove it. We can't be absolutely sure that there's no way Haines could show facts that would prove he's right, so even though we're not saying he will win, he should get to try to prove his case.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <opinion type="majority"> <author id="b659-12"> Per Curiam. </author> 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. <judges id="b661-7"> Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </judges> </opinion>

—and pro se complaints are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."

The pleadings of unrepresented parties are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and, therefore, must be liberally construed.

In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915 (e)(2)(B), the court must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction.

The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Plaintiff is not represented by an attorney.

—is required to dismiss an action under 28 USC § 1915 (e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.

In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff.

A pro se complaint, "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 support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.

Yes. A pro se complaint is held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, and a court may not dismiss it unless it is certain the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. The Court's reasoning is that allegations from a pro se plaintiff, 'however inartfully pleaded,' are sufficient to warrant an opportunity to present supporting evidence. Citing Conley v. Gibson, the Court reiterated the high bar for dismissal, stating it could not say 'with assurance' that it appeared 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' Therefore, even without expressing any view on the merits of the allegations, the petitioner is entitled to proceed with his case and offer proof.

Yes, the District Court erred in dismissing Haines' pro se complaint without allowing him an opportunity to present evidence on his claims. This is because allegations such as those asserted by Haines, 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.' Therefore, although we intimate no view on the merits of Haines' allegations, he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof.

Haines v. Kerner

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot