Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief can be Granted 26(b)(6)

After filing a lawsuit in federal court it is common for the defendant to file a Motion for Summary Judgement to get rid of a case against a Pro Se litigant. If this is your first case, this Motion can seem like a trump card has been played and youPro Se Motion For Summary Judgment are done.

No so fast.

As you will learn after have a couple of cases under your belt, ridding yourself of a Motion for Summary Judgement is usually quite easy. In this article, I am not going to focus on the reply or the process. I am going to forward on to you some case law that was sent to me that relates to the situation. If you are knee deep in a case and have a 26(b)(6) on your plate, email me and I will likely be able to help.

Here is the case law I was discussing:

In General, Pro Se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than those applied to members of the Bar (lawyers…).

For example, in reviewing a pro se litigant’s complaint for dismissal, the court must read the complaint less stringently than it would an attorney’s. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam); Madyun v. Thompson, 657 F.2d 868, 876 (7th Cir. 1981). Pro se prisoners are not prejudiced by the filing of handwritten materials. See Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 358 (10th Cir. 1978) (per curiam); Tarlton v. Henderson, 467 F.2d 200,201 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam).

If the complaint misapprehends the claim appropriate to its grievance, the trial court must re-characterize the claim.

See Madison v. Tahash, 359 F.2d 60, 61 (8th Cir. 1966) (construing application for appointment of counsel as one for a certificate of probable cause); United States ex rel. Johnson v. Chairman, N.Y. State Bd. of Parole, 363 F. Supp. 416, 417 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) (application for order mandating parole board to state reasons for denying parole may be treated as habeas corpus petition), aff’d, 500 F.2d 925 (2d Cir.), vacated and remanded, 419 U.S. 1015 (1974). But see Mundy v. Winston, 457 F. Supp. 678, 680 (E.D. Va. 1978) (pro se litigant always must have ultimate decision to elect what claim he will pursue).

Pro Se complaints should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it is apparent that they are unsupportable in law or fact.

See Brandon v. Dist. of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 62 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 1127 (1985); Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 (2d Cir. 1983); Bayron v. Trudeau, 702 F.2d 43, 45 (2d Cir. 1983).

Pro Se complaints cannot be construed inflexibly so as to require dismissal if the complaint fails to request precise appropriate relief.

See DeWitt v. Pail, 366 F.2d 682, 684-85 (9th Cir. 1966); Downing v. New Mex­ico Supreme Court, 339 F.2d 435, 436 (10th Cir. 1964) (per curiam); Holsey v. Bass, 519 F. Supp. 395, 402-03 (D. Md. 1981), aff’d, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983). See generally Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards than those applied to attorneys).

In response to the difficulty Pro Se litigants have in recognizing sum­mary judgment obligations, some courts have expanded the liberality tra­ditionally demonstrated towardPro Se pleadings

See, e.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v. Ker­ner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam).

There should be a general attitude of paternalism by the judiciary towards Pro Se litigants

See, Muhammad v. Rowe, 638 F.2d 693 (7th Cir. 1981

Hope this case law was helpful for you.

Fight the essential fight, Boiler

One comment
  1. E.g., Bayron v. Trudeau, 702 F.2d 43, 45 (2d Cir. 1983) ended postfiling immedeate dismissals , the defendant must answer, moreover Judge are public servant officials Federalist Paper No. 84 exposes your argument as defective public servant officials precedent interpreting the Bill of Rights as stipulations between kings, and Subjects,, however since we the people have a Bill of Rights no Court decision or case law or common law can encroach upon our civil liberties granted by the Judiciary Act of 1789 tell pro se litigannts that truth,, Judge have a contract Oath of Office which creates .Promissory estoppel to poor people, your citation of Judges selective enforcement of law is perjury Judges practice covenant faithfulness, to the American Bar Associations, and totalitarianism , against pro se litigants we will not accept Judges dubious, self-dealing Fraud in the Factum arguments based in segregation , and insistance of enforcing state judicial employment monopoly or fraud inducement , which are amply illustrated by your citations of Judge stipulations to us pro se litigants fraudulanly inducing us to waive our 1st Amendment right to petition to government for redress of grievances , by “certain specified de facto obligations” Pro se Litigants literate of law expend limited substantial resources and energy in litigating their claims, only to find our Constitutional rights privileges and liberties are, void nullities by self-dealing postfiling immediate dismissal resolutions and commands ubove, which are nothing but insurrection and rebellion against U.S. Constitution, detrimentally relied upon? . The forgoing Convoluted syntax makes 28 USC 1915(a), however simple, difficult to understand are duplicity Congress directed the thrust of 28 U.S.C. 1915(a),(1) to the consequences of Jury Trials, not simply the commencement of an action, I would not suggest to pro se litigants in Federal Court to commit perjury by answering federal Judges deliberate misleading misrepresentations of the United States Constitution 9th and 10th amendment which preserve pro se litigants authority in all matters not specifically granted to the federal government, and rights ( Part III Article 26 equality clause of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations Treaty and Judiciary Act of 1789) not specifically enumerated by the Constitution fight back and say what Judges are Public Servant Officials in all pleading shocks thier Conscience, and stop their abuse of government Facilities, to discriminate against us Rich Peoples Civil Complaints are not dismissed upon Filing?

Add Comment

Required fields are marked *. Your email address will not be published.