Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): “ ‘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.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)), reh’g denied, 429 U.S. 1066, 97 S.Ct. 798, 50 L.Ed.2d 785 (1977); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652, reh’g denied, 405 U.S. 948, 92 S.Ct. 963, 30 L.Ed.2d 819 (1972); McDowell v. Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3d Cir.1996); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Lewis v. Attorney General of United States, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers (B) holding that allegations of pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers (C) holding that allegations in a pro se complaint are to be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers (D) holding that the complaint submitted by a pro se plaintiff must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers (E) holding pro se petition cannot be held to same standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys
Output (English): holding that the complaint submitted by a pro se plaintiff must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers