green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
43.7 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2019–2022 ·
…a pro se plaintiff . . . should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.
at p. 85
✓
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Matos v. Trump
a pro se plaintiff. . . should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Frascatore v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB
a pro se plaintiff . . . should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Costello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA
a pro se plaintiff . . . should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Coke v. Samalot
a pro se plaintiff . . . should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Yeboah v. Bank of America, N.A.
a pro se plaintiff . . . should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronald Massie v. Joseph Peter Latino and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
As a general matter, the Second Circuit has recognized that the solicitude afforded to pro se litigants includes a “relaxation of the limitations on the amendment of pleadings[.]” Tracy[ v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir. 2010)] (citing Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980)) (“A pro se plaintiff . . . should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.”); see also Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2013) (“A pro se complaint should not be dismissed without the Court's granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal readi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yeboah v. U.S. Bank, National Association
As a general matter, the Second Circuit has recognized that the solicitude afforded to pro se litigants includes a “relaxation of the limitations on the amendment of pleadings[.]” Tracy[ v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir. 2010)] (citing Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980)) (“A pro se plaintiff . . . should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.”); see also Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2013) (“A pro se complaint should not be dismissed without the Court's granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal readi…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Spencer v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980) (citation omitted); Best v. City of N.Y., No. 12-CV-7874, 2014 WL 163899 , at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Spencer v. Omega Laboratories Inc.
Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980) (citation omitted); Best v. City of N.Y., No. 12-CV-7874, 2014 WL 163899 , at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Albritton v. Fredella
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” A pro se plaintiff “should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.” Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rowe v. Cenlar FSB
Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980) (citation omitted); Best v. City of N.Y., No. 12-CV- 7874, 2014 WL 163899 , at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Price v. County Of Nassau
Mar. 18, 2020) (quoting Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980)); Best v. City of N.Y., No. 12-CV-7874, 2014 WL 163899 , at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Spencer v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980) (citation omitted); Best v. City of N.Y., No. 12- CV-7874, 2014 WL 163899 , at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzalez v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
The Court acknowledges that Ms. Gonzalez is currently proceeding pro se and notes that as a general matter, the Second Circuit has recognized that the solicitude afforded to pro se litigants includes a “relaxation of the limitations on the amendment of pleadings[.]” Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980)); see also Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2013) (“A pro se complaint should not be dismissed without the Court’s granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complain…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cuthbert v. The Town of East Hampton New York
Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980) (citation omitted); Best v. City of N.Y., No. 12-CV-7874, 2014 WL 163899 , at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hagans v. Nassau County Police Department
Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980) (citation omitted); Best v. City of N.Y., No. 12-CV-7874, 2014 WL 163899 , at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Redd v. County Of Nassau
Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980) (citation omitted); Best v. City of N.Y., No. 12-CV-7874, 2014 WL 163899 , at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chavez v. Wylie
Amendments to pro se complaints, in particular, should be granted “fairly freely.” Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montpelier v. Green Mountain Care
Leave to Amend The Second Circuit has held that “[a] pro se plaintiff, particularly one bringing a civil rights action, should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend [her] complaint.” Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980); see also Chavis 8 v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (“A pro se complaint ‘should not [be] dismiss[ed] without [the Court’s] granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.’” (quoting Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tracy v. Freshwater
Rather, it also embraces relaxation of the limitations on the amendment of pleadings, see Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980) (“A pro se plaintiff ... should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.”), leniency in the enforcement of other procedural rules, see LeSane v. Hall’s Sec.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sims v. Blot
To give such “extra leeway,” courts are, for example, to construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings and motions liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), and to allow amendments to a pro se litigant’s pleadings more freely, see Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980); courts should not allow a pro se litigant’s rights to “be impaired by harsh application of technical rules,” Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir.1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Colorado Capital v. Owens
Furthermore, amendments to pro se complaints should be allowed “fairly freely.” Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johns v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Moreover, “[a] pro se plaintiff, particularly one bringing a civil rights action, should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.” Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramirez v. Brooklyn Aids Task Force
Courts must read pro se complaints liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 , 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), and permit amendment of pro se civil rights complaints “fairly freely.” Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Choi v. Chemical Bank
Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 84 (2d Cir.1980).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Koff v. Butterworth
Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert F. Christensen and Eileen F. Christensen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service
The Second Circuit held that a pro se litigant “should be afforded an opportunity *1385 fairly freely to amend his complaint.” Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980) (per curiam) (civil rights action).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davidson v. O'Lone
Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 , 103 S.Ct. 1625 , 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983) (verdict sustained against correctional officers and the superintendent of the reformatory for placing the prisoner in a dangerous situation in which it was highly foreseeable that the assault would occur); Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980) (prisoner assaulted by another prisoner entitled to an opportunity "to show purposeful acts on the part of the correction officers or deliberate indifference to his safety amounting to a violation of due process.") This is consistent with our holding in Curtis v. Everette, 489…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davidson v. O'Lone
Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 , 103 S.Ct. 1625 , 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983) (verdict sustained against correctional officers and the superintendent of the reformatory for placing the prisoner in a dangerous situation in which it was highly foreseeable that the assault would occur); Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980) (prisoner assaulted by another prisoner entitled to an opportunity “to show purposeful acts on the part of the correction officers- or deliberate indifference to his safety amounting to a violation of due process.”) This is consistent with our holding in Curtis v. Everette…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wheeler v. Sullivan
Rhodes v. Robinson, supra; Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980). 7 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fred Traguth and Otto Handtke, Individually and Doing Business as Dance Motion Press v. D'LeLa Zuck
Trial courts have been directed to read pro se papers liberally, Haines v. Kemer, 404 U.S. at 520 , 92 S.Ct. at 595 , and to allow amendment of pro se complaints “fairly freely,” Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley v. Coughlin
THE MERITS 21 Turning to the merits, it is initially apparent that as "(a) pro se plaintiff, particularly one bringing a civil rights action, (Bradley) should (have been) afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint." Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980); see also Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 980 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley v. Coughlin
THE MERITS Turning to the merits, it is initially apparent that as “[a] pro se plaintiff, particularly one bringing a civil rights action, [Bradley] should [have been] afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.” Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980); see also Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 980 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maria Doe v. New York City Department Of Social Services
(2×)
Children, Inc. v. Rockefeller, 357 F.Supp. 752, 765 (E.D.N.Y., 1973); Corby v. Conboy, 457 F.2d 251 (2d Cir. 1972); Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (1980); Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doe ex rel. Doe v. New York City Department of Social Services
(2×)
Children, Inc. v. Rockefeller, 357 F.Supp. 752, 765 (E.D.N.Y., 1973); Corby v. Conboy, 457 F.2d 251 (2d Cir. 1972); Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (1980); Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
Little v. Municipal Corp.
See Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir.2010) (“A pro se plaintiff ... should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint.” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980))); Frasier v. General Electric Co., 930 F.2d 1004, 1007 (2d Cir.1991) (noting that a district court “should not dismiss [an action] without granting leave to amend at least once when the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim may be stated” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Update Art, Inc. v. Charnin
See Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980) (reversing dismissal of pro se complaint for failure to state a claim and directing district court to appoint counsel and permit plaintiff to amend complaint).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Askins v. NYC Transit
Bertin v. United States, 478 F.3d 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blizzard v. Quillen
See also Holmes v. Goldin, 615 F.2d 83, 85 (2d Cir.1980); Little v. Walker, 552 F.2d 193 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 932 , 98 S.Ct. 1507 , 55 L.Ed.2d 530 (1978); Curtis v. Everette, 489 F.2d 516 (3d Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 995 , 94 S.Ct. 2409 , 40 L.Ed.2d 774 (1974); Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 (8th *1450 Cir.1971); Schaal v. Rowe, 460 F.Supp. 155 (S.D.Ill.1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Larry C. HOLMES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Harrison GOLDIN, Comptroller, Theodore R. West, Warden, and Correction Officers Byred and Long, Brooklyn House of Detention, Defendants-Appellees
v.
Harrison GOLDIN, Comptroller, Theodore R. West, Warden, and Correction Officers Byred and Long, Brooklyn House of Detention, Defendants-Appellees
564, Docket 79-2177.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Feb 6, 1980.
Larry C. Holmes, pro se., Allen G. Schwartz, Corp. Counsel, New York City, Ronald E. Sternberg and Stephen J. McGrath, New York City, of counsel, for defendants-appellees.
Kaufman, Per Curiam, Smith, Timbers.
Cited by 45 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (1)
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a pro se civil rights action against two correction officers of the Brooklyn House of Detention, among other defendants. The complaint was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [1] The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Eugene H. Nickerson, Judge, dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. We reverse for appointment of counsel and an opportunity to amend the complaint.
The appellant, Larry Holmes, was an inmate of the Brooklyn House of Detention. On August 16,1978, he fought with another inmate and suffered injuries requiring medical attention. The two inmates were then transferred to the Segregation Housing Units. The next day, Holmes was released from his cell for his required daily one-hour recreation period. During this period, the defendant correction officers allegedly left open the door of the cell of Holmes’s antagonist of the previous day, who then left his cell and assaulted Holmes, causing further injuries requiring medical attention, principally a cut on the head. A prison rule required separation of inmates who had fought.
. Holmes’s complaint alleged that defendants’ actions violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the equal protection and due process clauses. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to allege[*85] “sufficient purposeful acts on the part of named defendants.”
The Supreme Court has recently twice declined to reach the question whether negligent conduct can form the basis of an award of damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979); Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 98 S.Ct. 855, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). The decisions of this court suggest that something more than simple negligence is required. See Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 1973). Whether or not negligence is enough, Holmes may be able to show purposeful acts on the part of the correction officers or deliberate indifference to his safety amounting to a violation of due process. He should be given the opportunity to do so. We must bear in mind that Holmes was not represented by counsel. A pro se plaintiff, particularly one bringing a civil rights action, should be afforded an opportunity fairly freely to amend his complaint. See Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242 (2d Cir. 1979). The complaint should not be dismissed at the pleading stage “unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiff [is] entitled to no relief under any state of the facts.” Escalera v. New York City Housing Authority, 425 F.2d 853 (2d Cir. 1970). That certainty is not present here.
We reverse and remand to the district court with instructions to appoint counsel and to permit the appellant to amend his complaint.
1
. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.