Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). · Go Syfert
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41,796 citation events (31,537 in the last 25 years) across 230 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Charles Moore v. Hillary Brown (mied, 2026-01-07) · Strongest negative: Zemater Jr. v. Public Action to Deliver Shelter Inc (ilnd, 2024-08-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed Distinguished Zemater Jr. v. Public Action to Deliver Shelter Inc
N.D. Ill. · 2024 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
illinois courts analyze ihra claims under a framework that is practically indistinguishable from the ada framework
examined Cited "but see" United States v. City Of Philadelphia (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1981 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411 , 89 S.Ct. 1843 , 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969) (plurality opinion) 6 See, e. g., Johns Manville Sales Corp. v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 261 F.Supp. 905, 908 (N.D.Ill.1966) Defendants also seek to have the amended complaint dismissed as being excessively prolix contrary to the "... simple, concise and direct ..." and "... short and plain statement of the claim ..." requirement of Rule 8 subsections (c)(1) and (a)(2), respectively.
examined Cited "but see" United States v. City of Philadelphia (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1980 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411 , 89 S.Ct. 1843 , 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969) (plurality opinion). .
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Zesiger
D. Kan. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) May
D. Kan. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) McIlwain (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
W.D. Ky. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Oswald
S.D. Fla. · 2026 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Rendon
E.D. Mich. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
pro se plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal construction of their pleadings and filings.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) ksd 2026
D. Kan. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) POLIMEDA
D.N.J. · 2026 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Charles Moore v. Hillary Brown
E.D. Mich. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
pro se plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal construction of their pleadings and filings.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) DOR
D.N.J. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Clelland
D. Kan. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Bangurah
E.D. Mich. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
pro se plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal construction of their pleadings and filings.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Mayar
W.D.N.C. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where ... there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Bryant
W.D.N.C. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where ... there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) POLIMEDA
D.N.J. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Wenger v. Serrault-Wiseman
D. Kan. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because mr. trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Thompson v. Miniard
E.D. Mich. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
pro se plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal construction of their pleadings and filings.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) FIG, LLC FBO SEC PTY v. Al-Malik Divine
S.D. Ohio · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
allegations of the pro se complaint... to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Hubbs v. City of Charlotte
W.D.N.C. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where ... there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. v. Mullady
W.D.N.C. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where . . . there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Rawlings v. Well Biz Brands
D. Kan. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Hayes v. Shawnee County Board of County Commissioners
D. Kan. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because mr. trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Crump v. Unified Government of Johnson County
D. Kan. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Crump v. Unified Government of Johnson County
D. Kan. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because mr. trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Gorsline v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
D. Kan. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Neisen v. Nueces County
S.D. Tex. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
to give advice would entail the district court's becoming a player in the adversary process rather than remaining its referee.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) POLIMEDA v. OUTDOORSY
D.N.J. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ro se pleadings must be liberally construed
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Moore v. Saint Paul Police Department
D. Minnesota · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ro se complaints are to be construed liberally.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Rhone v. Schmanke
D. Kan. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Braggs v. Madden
S.D. Cal. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
he district court must construe pro se 18 habeas filings liberally
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Crump v. Unified Government of Johnson County
D. Kan. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because mr. trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Barnett v. Cayer
W.D.N.C. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where ... there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Barnett v. Kaufman
W.D.N.C. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where ... there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Cole v. Bojangles
W.D.N.C. · 2024 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where . . . there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Baldwin v. Maiden Police Department
W.D.N.C. · 2024 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where . . . there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Hulett v. Olathe Medical Center
D. Kan. · 2024 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because mr. trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Nesbitt v. Mayorkas
W.D.N.C. · 2024 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where . . . there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) ATES v. GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC
M.D. Ga. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a complaint drawn by a lawyer is properly held to a higher standard than one drafted by a layman.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Boldridge v. Atchison, Kansas, City of
D. Kan. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Gleason v. Zmuda
D. Kan. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Cheadle v. Dinwiddie
10th Cir. · 2024 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
e hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers . . . .
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Albright (ID 99790) v. Harbin
D. Kan. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because mr. trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) (PC) Singh v. Blizzard (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to 14 amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 15 cured by amendment.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Hill v. Kijakazi
S.D. Tex. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because is pro se, construe his pleadings liberally.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Scriven v. Vital Core, LLC
D. Kan. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because mr. trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) (PS) Ellis v. County of El Dorado Mental Health Division (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to 14 amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 15 cured by amendment.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) (PS) Sweeting v. FBI (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to 14 amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 15 cured by amendment.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) (PS) Bird v. Porter (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to 1 amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 2 cured by amendment.
HAINES
v.
KERNER Et Al.
70-5025.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 22, 1972.
404 U.S. 519
Stanley A. Bass, by appointment of the Court, 401 U. S. 1008, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Jack Greenberg, James M. Nábrit III, William B. Turner, Alice Daniel, and Max Stern., Warren K. Smoot, Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for respondents pro hac vice. With him on the brief were William J. Scott, Attorney General, Joel M. Flaum, First Assistant Attorney General, and James B. Zagel, Morton E. Friedman, and Jayne A. Carr, Assistant Attorneys General., Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Charles H. Baron for Boston College Center for Corrections and the Law, and by Julian Tepper and Marshall J. Hartman for the National Law Office of the National Legal Aid and Defender Assn.
Powell, Rehnquist.
Cited by 25,083 opinions  |  Published
22 passages pin-cited by 27 cases
Pinpoint authority: #1,389 of 633,719
Citer courts: Federal Claims (9) · W.D. North Carolina (7) · Seventh Circuit (6) · Tenth Circuit (5) · E.D. Pennsylvania (4) · Eleventh Circuit (3) · Second Circuit (3)
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.