Document: 449 U.S. 5 101 S.Ct. 173 66 L.Ed.2d 163 Russell B. HUGHES, Jr.v.Charles J. ROWE et al. No. 79-6000. Nov. 10, 1980. [Syllabus from pages 5-6 intentionally omitted] PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, an inmate of the Illinois State Penitentiary, asks us to review order dismissing his civil rights action against respondent corrections officers and directing him pay counsel fees $400 for services rendered by Attorney General in representing respondents that action. 2 After granting a motion dismiss complaint failure state constitutional violation, District Court ordered petitioner show cause why should not be taxed under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Because he did respond order, fee award was entered.1 A reconsider later denied on ground petitioner's suit "meritless."2 The Appeals disposed novel question presented affirming unpublished order. 7 Cir., 605 F.2d 559.3 We now grant leave proceed forma pauperis petition certiorari reverse judgment Appeals. 3 * On September 20, 1977, charged with violation prison regulations placed segregation. At disciplinary hearing two days later, admitted other inmates had consumed homemade alcoholic beverage; punishment confinement segregation 10 days,4 demotion C-grade, loss 30 days' statutory good time. 4 Petitioner exhausted administrative remedies then filed 1983 United States Northern form used prisoners who are represented counsel. facts stated raised federal questions arguable merit: (1) decision place cell preceded justified any emergency or necessity; (2) conducted after been were biased him.5 Respondents, General's Office, moved complaint, but no affidavits denying explaining alleged petitioner. allowing file various amendments additional papers, dismissed without taking evidence. Thereafter made. In its Court, correctly noted Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment affords prisoner certain minimum procedural safeguards before may taken him.6 record reveal those at 22, concluded properly dismissed. However, seems have overlooked fact, clearly brief appeal, take until 20. Nothing papers behalf purports justify explain advance hearing. II 6 Petitioner's like most complaints Illinois, prepared It is settled law allegations such "however inartfully pleaded" held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted lawyers. . .." Haines v. Kerner, 404 519, 520, 92 594, 595, 652 (1972). See also Maclin Paulson, 627 83, 86 (CA7 1980); French Heyne, 547 994, 996 1976). Such claim unless it appears beyond doubt plaintiff can prove set support which would entitle relief. Haines, supra, 520-521, S.Ct., 596.7 And, course, generally as true purposes dismiss. Cruz Beto, 405 319, 322, 1079, 1081, 31 263 Applying these principles amended we conclude all one claim. bias irregularities 22 hearing, unequal treatment, cruel unusual punishment, even when liberally construed, insufficient require further proceedings Court. therefore affirm dismissal claims. 8 allegation confined unnecessarily different character. construed contention violated due process because took prior clear held. Indeed, expressly this terms response defendants' complaint.8 9 Segregation violate if postponement protections apprehended conditions. Hayes Walker, 555 625, 633 (CA7), cert. denied, 434 959, 98 491, 54 320 (1977). unnecessary case offense involve violence present "clear danger." There suggestion immediate necessitated Respondents make unsworn assertion "temporary investigative status,"9 significance designation unclear does not, more, dispose merely temporary pending investigation actionable.10 court cited Department Corrections Administrative Regulation authorized matters, where required "in interest institutional security safety."11 absence showing concern safety basis regulation Our discussion intended express view merits. adequate least some respondents, way affidavit otherwise, unjustifiably Although prolix lacking stylistic precision, Estelle Gamble, 429 97, 97 285, 50 251 (1976), pro se litigant's detailed recitation reveals face insufficiency complaint. cannot say assurance entitling U.S., 521, 596. Accordingly, reversed remanded proceedings.12 III 11 attorney's entered must vacated. 12 Christiansburg Garment Co. EEOC, 412, 694, 648 (1978), defendant brought Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964 recover only finds "that plaintiff's frivolous, unreasonable, foundation, though subjective bad faith." Id., 421, 700. arguably standard might applied 1983, perceive reason applying standard. meritless sense groundless foundation. fact ultimately lose itself sufficient justification assessment fees. As Christiansburg: 13 "To step assessing plaintiffs simply they do finally prevail substantially add risks inhering litigation undercut efforts Congress promote vigorous enforcement provisions VII. Hence, assessed opponent's groundless, continued litigate became so." 422, 701. 14 No finding supported case. 15 These limitations apply special force actions initiated uncounseled prisoners. Faithful adherence Kerner dictates rarely awarded plaintiffs. prisoner's survive An unrepresented litigant punished recognize subtle factual legal deficiencies Christiansburg, somewhat questionable unfavorable outset litigation, party entirely reasonable bringing suit. 16 Despite lower court's conclusion contrary, definitely sense. Even deserved received careful consideration both Appeals.13 Allegations that, upon examination, legally trial alone, "groundless" "without foundation" Christiansburg. 17 affirmed part part, consistent opinion. 18 so ordered. 19 THE CHIEF JUSTICE oral argument. 20 Justice STEWART insofar Court's He agrees, however, what said Part per curiam opinion, reasons 21 WHITE concurring result. I agree result reached Under Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 94 2963, 41 935 (1974), particular involved here-segregation But makes clear, triggered law-here regulations-segregation good-time reductions could imposed serious lapses hearing.1 regulations, occur safety.2 there findings warranted dispensing 23 well point out, although sought compensatory punitive damages, declaratory relief, full within 48 hours confinement, guilt established (indeed, conduct before), discipline found justified. successful proving deprivation, damages limited flowing days. Carey Piphus, 435 247, 1042, 55 252 likely nominal awardable. 24 am accord 25 REHNQUIST, dissenting. 26 effort distill vaguely tenable ignores crucial admissions fatally undermine deprivation. read holds erred solely allege given board 40 later. recognizes consuming alcohol, ante, 7-8, fails time incident. alleged: 27 "[I] involved, 'clear present' danger. Additionally, Captain C. D. Tuttle drinking." Amended Complaint 13.1 28 has "a problem alcohol." 14.2 light difficult see purpose rules constitutionally served. determine regulations; apprehended. Nor appropriate punishment. That board, concedes matter how concerning Ante, 10. sole served removed general population short period between occurrence incident 7:30 night noon 22. 29 petitioner, officials holding reports being guilty described condition "tipsy, speech slurred" "had appearance drunk" "appeared intoxicated." grievance again gotten "drunk" 20th.3 Intoxicated surely pose threat safety, placing status providing safety." This several occasions stressed " 'central goals internal facilities themselves.' Bell Wolfish, 441 546-547, 99 1861, 1878, 60 447 (1979) (quoting Pell Procunier, 417 817, 823, 2800, 2804, 495 (1974)). Jones North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 119, 129, 2532, 2539, 53 629 (1977); Procunier Martinez, 416 396, 1800, 1810, 224 (1974). "Prison free ensure personnel. ." 547, 1878. repeatedly recognized judiciary, "ill-equipped" deal "complex difficult" problems running prison, decisions great deference. See, e. g., 126, 2538; 405, 1807. rule applies greatest act preserve central goal discipline. administrators accorded wide-ranging deference adoption execution policies practices their needed maintain security." Against well-established background, acted discretion removing population. authority relied claims based "bad faith" "mere pretext." 1977) La Batt Twomey, 513 641, 647 1975)). intoxicated, out faith mere pretext. Their remove "rationally related reasonable, indeed central, objectives administration," Union 2539. envision exactly intoxicated participate meaningful immediately drinking strong argument certainly advanced hold was, admitted, drunk. thus Codd Velger, 624, 882, 51 (1977), occurred untenured employee discharged permit name, since dispute truth allegedly stigmatizing discharge. Here stronger, contend innocent whether discharge employee's property employment. So, too, here removal convening justified, and, admissions, abuse shown.4 32 himself, period5 fully protect integrity board. Permitting return following breach poses difficulties alibi construction witness intimidation. case, three single charges them. justifications outweigh burden possibly inmate, whatever merit cases, course applicable continues admit guilt. 33 foregoing detracts (1972), liberality read, contains admission undermines colorable note original forms designed easier articulate recur frequently isolating relevant information district judge. notes gave "careful consideration," Judge Swygert below argued "it quite evident treatment [D]istrict [C]ourt issues meritless." odd, spending considerable concluding meritless. carefully examined possible hardly evidence exist. Quite indication deeply probed. 34 proper respondent's motion, extensively. therefore, using "meritless" term understood 700 ("the 'meritless' meaning rather lost case"). 35 1988 committed courts, intimately familiar litigation. Like Seventh Circuit, abused awarding own cognizable suggested 700, appeared meritorious refuted emerged discovery trial. decisive "questionable" "unfavorable," suggests, 15; dispositive. McMillen October 18, 1978, reads follows: "On August 7, twenty (20) thereof attorneys' amount complied otherwise responded hereby tax pursuant 1988." December 5, reconsideration: Plaintiff Plaintiff's will plaintiff, Rule 35(c)(1) Circuit Rules identifies warranting publication: "A published opinion "(i) establishes new, changes existing, law; "(ii) involves issue continuing public interest; "(iii) criticizes existing "(iv) constitutes significant nonduplicative contribution literature "(A) historical law, "(B) describing legislative history, "(C) resolving creating conflict "(v) reverses denies agency supporting order; "(vi) remand Supreme ministerial obedience specific directions Court." When satisfy criteria, 35(c)(2). Unpublished orders precedent Circuit. 35(b)(2)(iv). appeal decided purportedly having precedential significance, members Appeals, Chief Fairchild Judges Bauer, nonetheless voted rehear en banc. written dissent rehearing sentence included spent sentenced addition already apparently confusion respect exact indicates Appeals' hand, states writ respondents' opposition similarly inconsistent point. indicate uncertainty posthearing material our denial equal protection laws impose more severe incident, confessed not. noted: "The delineated determining afforded rights. entitled notice her; opportunity call witnesses documentary evidence, provided jeopardize correctional goals, sufficiently impartial board; (3) statement finder 'the taken.' reaffirmed 106, 292, (1976): "As unanimously 519 [92 652] 'however pleaded,' 'less lawyers' 'beyond relief.' 520-521 595-596] quoting Conley Gibson, 355 41, 45-46 [78 99, 101-102, 80] (1957)." document entitled, "Response to: Motion Dismiss For Summary Judgment/& Memorandum Support Judgment," "Placement Segregation: what-so-ever. necessary Resident Information Report issued him, stating segregation, status." Response, (emphasis original). thereafter asserted "[c]lassification comply process." 4, 7. went assert placement "completely unnecessary, posed institution. 8. Later response, discussed detail. 15-16. Judgment, asserted: "Plaintiff's cellhouse 1977 resident rise level sanctions constituting grievous transfer another trigger protections. Meachum Fano, 427 215, 96 2532 [49 451] (1976)." stated: "Plaintiff complains evening 'unnecessary' find 72 hour period, actionable. A.R. 804(G), effective 1, 1976." regulation, 804(II)(G), provides, pertinent part: "It incidents which, unit completion investigation. functions same manner (except celling unit), relative placements, conditions unit." dissenting rests alternative grounds prehearing solitary (a) adequately proved, (b) forestall development contrived defense, (c) harmless subsequently fair drinking, plus officers, concludes warrant little justifying establish, find, security. asserted, concerns. speculates suspected violations allowed remain proceedings, fabricate defenses intimidate potential witnesses. Post, danger automatic suspects. Ironically, n. 11, purport blanket Moreover, particularly inappropriate guilt; fabrication alibis intimidation unlikely While concerns might, nothing suggests work Either postulated dispositive made findings. accordingly possibility admittedly intent deny facts, want establish mitigating circumstances confinement. dissent's emphasis confuses distinction, previously Cf. Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 483-484, 2593, 2601, 484 Finally, subsequent minimized eliminated compensable harm resulting initial safeguards, 266-267, 1053-1054, (1978). "Because right 'absolute' depend merits claimant's substantive assertions, importance organized society observed actionable proof actual injury." 266, 1053 (footnote omitted). banc, 3, seven-page According Swygert: corroborated appeal." Regulations effect Program Team minor violations, Adjustment Committee "including programmatic population, grade, time." 804(II)(A)(4). informed, inter alia, "if [by Committee] community, and/or deprived current grade credit." 804(II)(B)(4). 804(II)(G)(1), quoted majority 12, 11. situations, reasons. Section 804(II)(E)(1) provided: "Whenever aggressive behavior safekeeping, shift captain manager authorize next meeting Committee, exceed hours." 804(II)(F)(1) deemed Officer facility reasons, hours. ARs 819 822 transfers." report filled confirms nature elaborated [a]lcohol ever fifteen years old, nowhere my past you sort arrest didn't drugs." 13, drinking. overlooks wherein reviewed considered highlights career asked "why, things going myself, close appearing Parole Board, get drunk louse up had?" supplied). forth text. argue companions did, intoxicated. importantly, distinguish places intolerable officials, must, risk money decide precisely react completely odds responsibility discipline, infra, citation begs cases deprivations Here, "appropriate findings" intoxication dispositive, presumably required. Thus far discernible reasoning lack wrongful Findings conclusively Prison hours;

Category: 5