Legal Document

454 U.S. 364 102 Supreme Court Reporter 700 70 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 551 Donald G. BOAGv.Ellis MacDOUGALL, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections. Number 80-6845. Jan. 11, 1982. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, who was then an inmate the Corrections Reception and Treatment Center, filed a crudely written complaint in District for Arizona, which he alleged, inter alia, that had been placed solitary confinement on March 3, 1980, without any notice charges or hearing, threatened with violence when asked what were, still "the hole" week later. The dismissed ground case moot because petitioner transferred to another facility. 2 On appeal, Appeals did not endorse Court's mootness rationale, rightfully so, since transfer damages claim. Nevertheless, affirmed, 642 Federal Reporter, 2nd 455 (1981), concluding first, district courts have "especially broad" discretion dismiss frivolous actions against prison officials under 28 Code KF62 § 1915(d), second, petitioner's action is it does state claim upon relief can be granted. We need address permissible contours Appeals' first conclusion, its second conclusion erroneous as matter law. Construing inartful pleading liberally, Haines versus Kerner, 404 519, 92 594, 30 652 (1972), instructs federal do pro se actions, states cause action. See Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 555-572, 94 2963, 2974-2982, 41 935 (1974). basis record before us, we cannot find sufficient affirming dismissal complaint.* 3 motion leave proceed forma pauperis petition certiorari are granted, judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent this opinion. 4 It so ordered. JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concurring. 5 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions join per curiam, but write separately emphasize two points. First, nothing opinion prevents remand from dismissing suit 1915(d) if finds grounds believe "malicious frivolous." This only requires articulate briefly reasons order facilitate appellate review. Second, merit Justice REHNQUIST's comments equipped correct every perceived error coming lower courts. effectiveness rests part practice deciding cases broad significance declining expend limited judicial resources cases, such present one, whose parties. In exercising our discretionary jurisdiction, should influenced solely by merits case. 6 REHNQUIST, whom THE CHIEF WHITE join, dissenting. 7 curiam reverses decision neither nor articulated proper complaint. While agree curiam's complaint, construed alleges action, support below. More importantly, good example kind decide. 8 shows failed comply local rules Phoenix Division, his filed. As claim, typewritten document entitled "From To Be Used By Prisoner Filing Complaint Under Civil Rights Act, 42 1983." Section headed "Previous Lawsuits," subsection A required plaintiff answer: 9 "Have you begun other lawsuits court dealing same facts otherwise relating your imprisonment? Yes (____) No (____)." 10 Petitioner check either "Yes" "No" space answer next seven questions about previous filings, thereby violating Court. Rule 53(a), Local Rules Arizona. There appears reason omission. Records Court, may take notice, Wells States, 318 257, 260, 63 582, 584, 87 L.Ed. 746 (1943), indicate past at least prisoner civil rights suits denied others. 11 my view, justified no reason, simply refused regarding disclosure lawsuits. fact relied remove consideration. respondent seek affirmance disclosed would expand New York Telephone Co., 434 159, 166, n. 8, 98 364, 369, 54 376 (1977); Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 475 6, 90 1153, 1156-57 25 491 (1970); Ryerson 312 405, 408, 61 656, 657-58, 85 917 (1941). reversing below permitting parties brief case, precludes seeking basis. 12 Even there were affirmance, unworthy attention. zeal provide "equal justice law," must never forget forum correction errors. said Chief Vinson: 13 "The not, has been, primarily concerned errors decisions. almost all within already received one review debates Constitutional Convention make clear purpose establishment supreme national tribunal was, words John Rutledge South Carolina, 'to secure uniformity Judgmts.' function is, therefore, resolve conflicts arisen among courts, pass wide import Constitution, laws, treaties exercise supervisory power over If took interesting legal question raised, prima facie impression erroneous, could fulfill statutory responsibilities remain effective, continue decide those resolution will immediate importance far beyond particular involved."* 14 doubted involved. 15 Finally, worth emphasizing saying provision permitted pauperis, expressly authorizes "if satisfied malicious." especially power, recognized footnote safeguards public abuses privilege restrained costs litigation. read narrowing power. Nor equate 12(b)(6) Procedure. Rather, holds conclusions erroneous. From reversal basis, respectfully dissent. * Neither argument advanced dissenting Indeed, dissent's information attempted file dozen record, opinions below, briefs recognize vests identify complaints, appear papers us exercised Court; both position decide, these whether "satisfied [the Court] 1915(d). character addressed instance based rule, prior filings justify malicious, statement explaining made intelligent Address Vinson American Bar Association, Sept. 7, 1949 (quoted R. Stern E. Gressman, Practice 258 (5th ed. 1978)).

Classification Label: 0