karl lentz :
Cheers to TrustinALLlaw, and thanks for a great post!
Source: karl lentz, Platsky v. CIA ( 953 F.2d 21 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 97), Recorded 11-15-12, My Private Audio
Ep. 188 – start at 15:32, TrustInALLlaw uploaded to Youtube.com on Dec.12, 2013, http://openjurist.org/953/f2d/26/plat..
“Pro se plaintiffs are often unfamiliar with the formalities of pleading requirements. Recognizing this, the Supreme Court has instructed the district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally and to apply a more flexible standard in determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint than they would in reviewing a pleading submitted by counsel. See e.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam); see also Elliott v. Bronson, 872 F.2d 20, 21 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam). In order to justify the dismissal of a pro se complaint, it must be ” ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ “ Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. at 594 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).
Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer:
(1) This post is made in good faith.
(2) The material presented in this post is expressly and solely for general education/knowledge and/or entertainment purposes. It is expressly not posted for commercial or profitable use by one without a copyright if subject to copyright of which Author of this post and blog is currently unaware.
(3) Nothing in this post can be construed as legal advice as Author of this blog and post is not a board certified, specialized lawyer or trial attorney, paralegal, legal practitioner, or trained advocate. Using such information would be at the cost or consequence of one’s own peril.
(4) Standard Youtube license applies