Haines v. Keaner, et al. 404 U.S. 519,92 s. Ct. 594,30 L. Ed. 2d 652.
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 '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).
Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown 466 U.S. 147,104 S. Ct. 1723,80 L. Ed. 2d 196,52 U.S.L.W. 3751.
Rule 8(f) provides that 'pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.' We frequently have stated that pro se pleadings are to be given a liberal construction.
Estelle, Corrections Director, et al. v. Gample 29 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251.
We now consider whether respondent's complaint states a cognizable 1983 claim. The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed. As the Court unanimously held in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), 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." Id., at 520 521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,45 46 (1957).
Hughes v. Rowe et al. 449 U.S. 5, 101 S. Ct. 173,66 L. Ed. 2d 163,49 U .S.L. W .3346.
Petitioner's complaint, like most prisoner complaints filed in the Northern District of Illinois, was not prepared by counsel. It is settled law that the allegations of such a [pro se] complaint, "however inartfully pleaded" are held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 (1972). See also Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83,86 (CA7 1980); French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994,996 (CA7 1976). Such a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines, supra, at 520 521. And, of course, the allegations of a complaint are generally taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319,322 (1972).
Rabin v. Dep't of State, No. 95-4310, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15718.
The court noted that pro se plaintiffs should be afforded "special solicitude."