12(b)(6) & SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to S.C.O.T.U.S. and other higher court decisions; Judges are precluded from dismissing a case against a pro se litigant for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and or grant Summar! "udgment against a pro se litigant. This chapter lists legal concepts e#idencing this fact and the appropriate jurisprudence !ou can use to state these concepts in !our motions$ replies$ responses to pre#ent the ban%s attorne! and "udge from throwing !our case out for no other reason than !ou are not familiar with court rules and procedures. &t is important to note that if !our ad#ersar! enters an affida#it for an! reason !ou 'UST rebut their affida#it with an affida#it; and demand the court stri%e their affida#it unless the! ha#e the author of said affida#it testif! under oath. 1. Pro se pleadi !s !e erall" are #eld $o less s$ri !e $ s$a dards $#a $#ose applied $o %e%bers o& $#e 'ar. (or e)ample$ in re#iewing a pro se litigant*s complaint for dismissal$ the court must read the complaint less stringentl! than it would an attorne!*s. See +ughes #. ,owe$ --. U.S. /$ .012 31.425 3per curiam5; +aines #. 6erner$ -2- U.S. /1.$ /72071 31.875 3per curiam5; 'ad!un #. Thompson$ 9/8 (.7d 494$ 489 38th Cir. 1.415. Pro se prisoners are not pre"udiced b! the filing of handwritten materials. See Tw!man #. Crisp$ /4- (.7d :/7$ :/4 312th Cir. 1.845 3per curiam5; Tarlton #. +enderson$ -98 (.7d 722$721 3/th Cir. 1.875 3per curiam5. 2. Pro se (o%plai $s s#o)ld o$ be dis%issed &or &ail)re $o s$a$e a (lai% ) less i$ is appare $ $#a$ $#e" are ) s)ppor$able i la* or &a($. See
;randon #. <ist. of Columbia ;d. of Parole$ 8:- (.7d /9$ 97 3<.C. Cir. 1.4-5$ cert, denied, -9. U.S. 1178 31.4/5; =illiams #. 6ullman$ 877 (.7d 12-4$ 12/2 37d Cir. 1.4:5; ;a!ron #. Trudeau$ 827 (.7d -:$ -/ 37d Cir. 1.4:5.

+. ,& $#e (o%plai $ %isappre#e ds $#e (lai% appropria$e $o i$s !rie-a (e. $#e $rial (o)r$ %)s$ re(#ara($eri/e $#e (lai%. See
'adison #. Tahash$ :/. (.7d 92$ 91 34th Cir. 1.995 3construing application for appointment of counsel as one for a certificate of probable cause5; United States ex rel. Johnson #. Chairman$ >.?. State ;d. of Parole$ :9: (. Supp. -19$ -18 3@.<.>. ?. 1.8:5 3application for order mandating parole board to state reasons for den!ing parole ma! be treated as habeas corpus petition5$ aff'd, /22 (.7d .7/ 37d Cir.5$ vacated and remanded, -1. U.S. 121/ 31.8-5. But see 'und! #. =inston$ -/8 (. Supp. 984$ 942 3@.<. Aa. 1.845 3pro se litigant alwa!s must ha#e ultimate decision to elect what claim he will pursue5.

0. Si%ilarl". pro se (o%plai $s (a o$ be (o s$r)ed i &le1ibl" so as $o re2)ire dis%issal i& $#e (o%plai $ &ails $o re2)es$ pre(ise appropria$e relie&. See
<e=itt #. Pail$ :99 (.7d 947$ 94-04/ 3.th Cir. 1.995; <owning #. >ew 'e)ico Supreme Court$ ::. (.7d -:/$ -:9 312th Cir. 1.9-5 3per curiam5; +olse! #. ;ass$ /1. (. Supp. :./$ -2702: 3<. 'd. 1.415$ aff'd, 817 (.7d 82 3-th Cir. 1.4:5. See generally +aines #. 6erner$ -2- U.S. /1.$

/72071 31.875 3per curiam5 3pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards than those applied to attorne!s5.

3. Ad-isi ! pro se li$i!a $s o& s)%%ar" 4)d!%e $ obli!a$io s is a lo!i(al e1$e sio o& $#e liberali$" a((orded pro se li$i!a $s i $#e &ederal (o)r$s. This appears to be the #iew of se#eral courts that reBuire notification of summar! "udgment obligations to pro se litigants. See 'oore #. (lorida$ 82: (.7d
/19$ /72071 311th Cir. 1.4:5; Cewis #. (aul%ner$ 94. (.7d 122$ 121027 38th Cir. 1.475.

6. T#e di%i is#ed re2)ire%e $s o& pro se &ili !s are a e&&or$ $o a&&ord a la"%a a oppor$) i$" $o pro(eed i a le!al s"s$e% desi! ed &or i di-id)als $rai ed i $#e la*. See +ughes #. ,owe$ --. U.S. /$ . 31.425 3per curiam5;
6erner$ -2- U.S. /1.$ /72071 31.875 3per curiam5. See also +aines #.

5.

a.

T#is be e&i$. b" i$s $er%s. see%s $o e1$e d o l" $o $#e pleadi ! s$a!e.

See Haines, -2- U.S. at /72071 b. (o)r$s. See

,oss #. (ranDen$ 888 (.7d 1719$ 171. 38th Cir. 1.4/5 3analogiDing Haines ruling to diminished summar! "udgment rigor for pro se litigants5. Elthough a pro se litigant should not obtain an! ad#antages in a lawsuit from his self0representation$ he should not incur an! disabilities from his lac% of legal training that easil! could be a#erted b! "udicial solicitude for his claim. See Camps #. C F P Tel. Co.$ 9.7 (.7d 172$ 17- 3<.C. Cir. 1.415; cf. Gordon #. Cee%e$ /8- (.7d 11-8$ 11/70/: 3-th Cir.5 3HIaJ district court is not reBuired to act as an ad#ocate for a pro se litigant; but... should afford him a reasonable opportunity to determine the correct person . . . against whom the claim is asserted$ IandJ advise him how to proceed....H5 3emphasis added5$ cert denied, -:. U.S. .82 31.845.

S)(# a li%i$a$io . #o*e-er. $#*ar$s $#e pro se li$i!a $6s a((ess $o $#e

7. T#e %)r8". o&$e (o (l)sor" alle!a$io s o& a pro se (o%plai $ are i appropria$e bases &or disposi$io o& a (ase o $#e %eri$s. See
@stelle #. Gamble$ -7. U.S. .8$ 117 31.895 3Ste#ens$ J.$ dissenting5; 1.42 Eldisert ,eport$ supra note 17$ at 17$ -9. But see Turner$ Wlien risoners Sue! " Study of risoner Section #$%& Suits in the 'ederal (ourts, .7 +ar#. C. ,e#. 912$ 918 n.-9 31.8.5 3noting that most pro se complaints Turner encountered were t!ped$ legible$ and concise5.

9. A&&ida-i$s a d o$#er e-ide $iar" %a$erials )s)all" are eeded $o &)r is# s)&&i(ie $ &a($s $o de(ide a pro se li$i!a $6s (ase. See @stelle #. Gamble$ -7. U.S. .8$ 117 31.895 3Ste#ens$ J.$ dissenting5. 1:. ;i$#o)$ !)ida (e re!ardi ! s)%%ar" 4)d!%e $ %o$io pra($i(e. $#e

) derl"i ! ra$io ale &or liberal $rea$%e $ o& pro se pleadi !s is $#*ar$ed. To liberali/e pleadi ! re2)ire%e $s &or pro se li$i!a $s $o e s)re e $r" i $o $#e (o)r$#o)se a d $#e de%a d ri!oro)s (o%plia (e *i$# pre$rial pro(ed)ral r)les &os$ers a $e )o)s a((ess $o $#e (o)r$s. See Keigler F +ermann$ supra note -$ at 727. This rationale seems to underlie the (ourth Circuit cases reBuiring that "udges apprise pro se litigants of summar! "udgment obligations. &n ,oseboro #. Garrison$ /74 (.7d :2. 3-th Cir. 1.8/5 3per curiam5$ the (ourth Circuit Court of Eppeals established the broad rule that Ha pro se plaintiffH must be apprised of his obligations under the summar! "udgment rule before summar! "udgment ma! be entered against him. See id at :12. The court cites +udson #. +ard!$ -17 (.7d 12.1 3<.C. Cir. 1.945$ as a precursor of its decision$ !et does not refer to that case*s reliance on the handicaps imposed on a litigant b! detention in formulating a similar rule. See ,oseboro$ /74 (.7d at :12. &nstead$ the ,oseboro court "ustifies its procedural lenienc! on the ground that a litigant is unrepresented. See id.; accord Jacobsen$ 8.2 (.7d at 1:94 3,einhardt$ J.$ dissenting5; see also =right #. Collins$ 899 (.7d 4-1$ 4-9 3-th Cir. 1.4/5 3to protect pro se litigant from forfeiture of rights because of ignorance5; <a#is #. Kahradnic%$ 922 (.7d -/4$ -92 3-th Cir. 1.8.5 3same5. 11. a. , respo se $o $#e di&&i()l$" pro se li$i!a $s #a-e i re(o! i/i ! s)%< %ar" 4)d!%e $ obli!a$io s. so%e (o)r$s #a-e e1pa ded $#e liberali$" $radi$io all" de%o s$ra$ed $o*ard pro se pleadi !s = See, e.g., +ughes #. ,owe$ --. U.S. /$ .012 31.425 3per curiam5; +aines #. 6erner$ -2- U.S.
/1.$ /72071 31.875 3per curiam5.

b. < i $o a !e eral a$$i$)de o& 4)di(ial pa$er alis% $o*ard pro se li$i!a $s. Phillips #. United States ;d. of Parole$ :/7 (.7d 811 3<.C. Cir. 1.9/5 3per curiam5$ was the first case to accord less stringent procedural reBuirements on pro se litigants. &n Phillips$ the district court entered summar! "udgment against an inmate see%ing release from detention when he failed to respond to a motion for summar! "udgment supported b! affida#its. See id at 81:. The court of appeals re#ersed$ holding that although the go#ernment had complied with ,ule /9$ application of that rule Hwith strict literalnessH was inappropriate. See id at 81-. The difficulties in obtaining counsel and gathering e#idence resulting from incarceration con#inced the court that the reBuirements of ,ule /9 should not be applied rigidl! to litigants so burdened. See id at 81:01-. Precisel! how the! should be applied was not articulated b! the same court until the seminal case of +udson #. +ard!$ -17 (.7d 12.1 3<.C. Cir. 1.945. &n +udson$ a prisoner alleging #iolations of constitutional rights appeared pro se when his reBuest for appointment of counsel was denied. See id at 12.:. &n #acating an order of summar! "udgment against the inmate$ the court held that a prisoner who had not been apprised of his obligation to submit counter0affida#its$ in response to a motion for summar! "udgment supported b! affida#its had not been afforded an opportunit! to compl! with ,ule /93e5. See id. at 12.-. This rationale

has been echoed b! most courts reBuiring "udges to inform pro se litigants of obligations under ,ule /9. See 'aggette #. <alsheim$ 82. (.7d 422$ 427 37d Cir. 1.4:5; 'oore #. (lorida$ 82: (.7d /19$ /72 311th Cir. 1.4:5; 'ad!un #. Thompson$ 9/8 (.7d 494$ 488 38th Cir. 1.415; +am #. Smith$ 9/: (.7d 974$ 9:2 3<.C. Cir. 1.415 3per curiam5; ,oseboro #. Garrison$ /74 (.7d :2.$ :12 3-th Cir. 1.8/5 3per curiam5. The notice pro#ided b! the court must be sufficientl! clear to impress the conseBuences of failure to submit counter0affida#its or other responsi#e materials. See +udson$ -17 (.7d at 12.-; accord Cewis #. (aul%ner$ 94. (.7d 122$ 127 38th Cir. 1.475; <a#is #. Kahradnic%$ 922 (.7d -/4$ -92 3-th Cir. 1.8.5; ,oseboro$ /74 (.7d at :12. 'ost of the cases following +udson seemed to base their decisions on an attempt to redress the significant disparit! in legal abilities e)isting between represented and unrepresented litigants. See$ e.g.$ Garau) #. Pulle!$ 8:. (.7d -:8$ -:. 3.th Cir. 1.4-5 3because pro se litigants are unable to comprehend procedural reBuirements$ court must ensure this ignorance does not cause loss of claim5; 'oore #. (lorida$ 82: (.7d /19$ /72 311th Cir. 1.4:5 3inmates* limited access to legal materials increases ineBualit! with represented litigants5; +am #. Smith$ 9/: (.7d 974$ 9:2 3<.C. Cir. 1.415 3per curiam5 3recentl! released prisoner li%el! to labor under same handicaps as inmate in compl!ing with summar! "udgment rule5; <a#is #. Kahradnic%$ 922 (.7d -/4$ -92 3-th Cir. 1.8.5 3pro se plaintiffs reBuire safeguarding from summar! disposition claims5; ,oseboro #. Garrison$ /74 (.7d :2.$ :12 3-th Cir. 1.8/5 3per curiam5 3same5. En emerging bod! of caselaw from the (ourth and Se#enth Circuits$ howe#er$ suggests that this e)tension of the right of access is a legitimate inference from the reduced pleading reBuirements for pro se litigants espoused in +aines #. 6erner$ -2- U.S. /1.$ /72071 31.875$. &n Craig #. Garrison$ /-. (.7d :29 3-th Cir. 1.885$ re#*d on other grounds$ Shah #. +utto$ 877 (.7d 1198 3-th Cir. 1.4:5$ the (ourth Circuit cited +aines for the broad proposition Hthat a pro se petitioner untrained in the law is not to be held to the same standards as a member of the bar.H See id. at :28; cf. ;orDe%a #. +ec%ler$ 8:. (.7d ---$ --80-4 n.7 3.th Cir. 1.4-5 3noting lenienc! towards pro se litigants in "urisdictional matters5; Cant! #. Cit! of ,ichmond$ :4: (. Supp. 1:.9$ 1:..01-22 3@.<. Aa. 1.8-5 3stating heightened solicitude reBuired for pro se plaintiffs to ensure allegations of constitutional depri#ations are not defeated because of inartful presentation5$ aff*d sub nom. Cant! #. ;rown$ /79 (.7d /48 3-th Cir. 1.8/5$ cert$ denied$ -7: U.S. 1297 31.895. This is unmista%abl! an e)tension of the Court*s ruling in +aines. The Craig court$ howe#er$ ma%es no reference to its broadening of +aines. &n 'uhammad #. ,owe$ 9:4 (.7d 9.: 38th Cir. 1.415$ the Se#enth Circuit re#ersed an order of summar! "udgment against a pro se ci#il rights litigant who had not been informed of his obligation to file affida#its to oppose the motion. See id. at 9./0.9. The court united two sentences from +aines to conclude that a pro se Hplaintiff *is entitled to an opportunit! to offer proof unless *it appears Hbe!ond doubt that the plaintiff can pro#e no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.H * H See id. at 9./ 3Buoting +aines #. 6erner$ -2U.S. /1.$ /72071 1.87$ Buoting Conle! #. Gibson$ :// U.S. -1$ -/0-9 31./855.

One !ear later$ in Cewis #. (aul%ner$ 94. (.7d 122 38th Cir. 1.475$ the court promulgated a general rule that prisoner pro se litigants are entitled to be informed of their obligations under ,ule /93e5$ whether the motion is labelled as such or is deri#ed from a motion to dismiss. See id. at 127. Elthough the Cewis court did not cite +aines$ it spo%e in terms of an Hopportunit!H to offer proof in response to a motion for summar! "udgment. See id. 3emphasis in original5. The court posited that gi#en a la!man*s inadeBuate legal acumen$ mere time to respond does not constitute an opportunit! to oppose the motion. See id. Onl! notice of the motion*s reBuirements can afford the la!man an opportunit! to respond. See id. &n so holding$ the Cewis court imported the ,ule 173b5 notion of Hreasonable opportunit!H into what constitutes sufficient notice of the reBuirements of ,ule /9. See id. at 121027. The court reasoned that the mandate of notice reBuired b! ,ule 173b5 when a motion to dismiss is con#erted into one for summar! "udgment commands trial courts to inform pro se litigants of summar! "udgment obligations. See id. at 121. (ed. ,. Ci#. P. 173b5 pro#ides in pertinent partL Hall parties shall be gi#en reasonable opportunit! to present all material made pertinent to such a motion b! ,ule /9.H The notice pro#ision raises an inference that before summar! "udgment can be entered against a pro se prisoner$ e)plicit notice of the reBuirements of responding to such a motion must be gi#en. See Cewis$ 94. (.7d at 121027. &n ,oss #. (ranDen$ 888 (.7d 1719 38th Cir. 1.4/5$ the Se#enth Circuit reaffirmed its reliance on +aines in fashioning this Hproph!lactic ruleH for pro se prisoners. See id. at 171.; cf. Schilling #. =alworth Count! Par% F Planning Comm*n$ 42/ (.7d 787$788 n.. 38th Cir. 1.495 3pro se litigants entitled to Hfair and meaningful consideration on the meritsH5. The ,oss court strengthened the notice reBuirement*s bond to +aines* rule of liberal construction of pro se filings b! in#o%ing its reasoning to address the inappropri0ateness of reBuiring procedural stringenc! of pro se litigants. See ,oss$ 888 (.7d at 171.. Ci%e the (ourth Circuit in Craig$ the Se#enth Circuit made no attempt in ,oss or 'uhammad to "ustif! its significant e)tension of the +aines ruling.

12.

a.

Se-eral (o)r$s. #o*e-er. re&)se $o adop$ s)(# a &le1ible approa(#. <

E number of courts e)pressl! hold that pro se status confers no incidental rights on a litigant and that he must compl! with all applicable rules without an! assistance from the "udiciar!. See, )g., <oDier #. (ord 'otor
Co.$ 827 (.7d 114.$ 11.- 3<.C. Cir. 1.4:5; ;irl #. @stelle$ 992 (.7d /.7$ /.: 3/th Cir. 1.415; United States #. (owler$ 92/ (.7d 141$ 14: 3/th Cir. 1.8.5$ cert denied, --/ U.S. ./2 31.425; United States #. Pin%e!$ /-4 (.7d :2/$ :11 312th Cir. 1.885; 'aDiBue #. 'aDiBue$ :/9 (.7d 421$ 42/ 3<.C. Cir.5$ cert denied, :4- U. S. .41 31.995; Car%in #. United Ess*n of Journe!men$ ::4 (.7d ::/$ ::9 31st Cir5$ cert denied, :42 U.S. .8/ 31.9/5; Springer #. ;est$ 79- (.7d 7-$79 3.th Cir. 1./.5; see also =ilborn #. @scalderon$ 84. (.7d 1:74$ 1::7 3.th Cir. 1.495 3"udge ma! not become an ad#ocate for pro se litigant5; ;arnes #. United States$ 7-1 (.7d 7/7$7/:0// 3.th Cir. 1./95 3pro se litigant*s misapprehensions of pleadings$ pre0trial conferences$ "urisdiction$ and legal ethics not to be dispelled b! court5. The Supreme Court has issued the broad admonition that pro se litigants must compl! with all procedural rules without an! assistance from the "udiciar!. See 'c6as%le #. =iggins$ -9/ U.S. 194$ 14:04- 31.4-5; (aretta #. California$ -77 U.S. 429$ 4:/ n.-9 31.8/5. Et least one commentator has suggested that "udicial assistance of pro se litigants in the procedural area does not comport with the purposes of the (ederal ,ules of Ci#il Procedure. See (omment, supra note :8$ at 1/4.

b. < &i di ! i$ i (o !r)o)s *i$# $#e 4)d!e6s role i $#e ad-ersar" pro(ess> A a al"sis o& $#e ad-ersar" s"s$e% a d $#e 4)d!e6s role $#erei . #o*e-er. re-eals $#a$ $#is (o (er is ) 4)s$i&ied. See, )g., Jacobsen #. (iller$ 8.2 (.7d 1:97$ 1:9/099 3.th Cir. 1.495. The curious aspect of the
*acobsen court*s rationale is that the court undercuts its own essential premise. The essence of the court*s ob"ection to "udicial ad#isement of summar! "udgment obligations to pro se litigants is the incompatibilti! of the practice with the "udge*s role as impartial arbiter in the ad#ersar! s!stem. See id+ see also Committee on the (ederal Courts$ ,ecommendations for the &mpro#ement of the Edministration of ro Se Ci#il ,ights Citigation in the (ederal <istrict Courts in the Southern and @astern <istricts of >ew ?or%$ :2 ,ec. E.;. Cit! >.?. 128$ 112 31.8/5 Ihereinafter CommitteeJ 3arguing that nature of "udge*s role in ad#ersar! s!stem precludes "udicial assistance of pro se litigants5; ,obbins F +erman$ Pro Se ,itigation! ,itigating Without (ounsel! (aretta -r 'or Worse, -7 ;%l!n C. ,e#. 97.$ 941 31.895 3same5. Enal!ticall!$ this ob"ection must appl! with eBual force regardless of the pro se litigant*s freedom or economic status. ?et$ the court unceremoniousl! concedes that the practice is permissible when the pro se litigant is a prisoner. See *acobsen, 8.2 (.7d at 1:9-. >e#ertheless$ *acobsen rasises the broader issue of whether "udges should assist an! pro se litigants.

1+.

T#e as(er$ai %e $ o& $#e $r)$# is $#e &) da%e $al p)rpose o& a " $rial. See Tehan #. United States ex rel Shott$ :47 U.S. -29$ -19 31.995.

10. To &)r$#er $#is !oal. $#e $rial 4)d!e #as a obli!a$io $o i 4e($ (er$ai %a$$ers i $o $#e $rial $#a$ #e belie-es (r)(ial $o $#e de$er%i a$io o& $#e $r)$# See
Geders #. United States$ -7/ U.S. 42$ 49048 31.895 3"udge must assert substantial control o#er trial procedures and witness testimon!5; United States #. Pin%e!$ /-4 (.7d :2/$ :24 312th Cir. 1.885 3court*s suggestion to prosecution concerning what need be elicited from e)pert witness not pre"udicial5; E!ash #. United States$ :/7 (.7d 122.$ 1212 312th Cir. 1.9/5 3trial court ma! e)amine witnesses5

13. E-e *#ere a 4)d!e6s alle!ed ad-o(a(" &or o e par$" (o s$i$)$es error. i$ *ill o$ be re-ersed ) less $#e o$#er par$" is pre4)di(ed See in.ney, /-4 (.7d at :12; Chase #. Crisp$ /7: (.7d /./$ 922 312th Cir. 1.8/5$ cert, denied, -7- U.S. .-8 31.895 16. , $#e e1er(ise o& $#is le!i$i%a$e s)per-isor" role. $#e (o)r$s allo* 4)d!es $o ass)%e a &ar %ore a($i-e role i s#api ! la*s)i$s a d i &l)e (i ! res)l$s $#a %ere o$i&i(a$io o& pro(ed)ral re2)ire%e $s. (or e)ample$ a growing bod! of case law from the Third Circuit asserts that inherent "udicial powers allow a court to grant a defense witness immunit! in certain circumstances. See, e.g., Go#ernment of A.&. #. Smith$ 91/ (.7d
.9-$ .8:08- 3:d Cir. 1.425; United States #. +erman$ /4. (.7d 11.1$ 172- 3:d Cir. 1.845$ cert denied, --1 U.S. .1: 31.8.5. The "udiciar! traditionall! defers to prosecutorial discretion as to whom to immuniDe. See United States #. >i)on$ -14 U.S. 94:$ 9.: 31.8-5; United States #. +erman$ /4. (.7d 11.1$172: 3:d Cir. 1.845$ cert denied, --1 U.S. .1: 31.8.5. The federal

immunit! statute does not confer on federal courts the power to grant immunit! to trial wit nesses. See 14 U.S.C. MM 922102/ 31.475; see also United States #. ;achelor$ 911 (.7d --:$ --.0/2 3:d Cir. 1.8.5; United States #. +ousand$ //2 (.7d 414$ 47- 37d Cir.5$ cert, denied, -:1 U.S. .82 31.885. Thus the compatibilit! of this practice with the traditional role of the "udiciar! in the ad#ersar! s!stem is Buestionable. See Go#ernment of Airgin &slands #. Smith$ 91/ (.7d .9-$ .94 3:d Cir. 1.425. The position the Third Circuit ad#ances significantl! alters the "udge*s role in an ad#ersar! proceeding and disregards an uneBui#ocal congressional intent onl! to allow prosecutors to grant immunit!. See 14 U.S.C. M 922:3b5 31.475; +.,. ,ep. >o. 1/-.$ .1st Cong.$ 7d Sess.$ reprinted in 1.82 U.S. Code Cong. F Edmin. >ews -228$ -214 3HThe court*s role in granting the Iimmunit!J order is merel! to find the facts on which the order is predicated.H5. (ederal "udges are authoriDed to call witnesses the! belie#e crucial to a fair ad"udication of a contro#ers!. See (ed. ,. @#id. 91-3a5. The! ma! also e)amine witnesses to clarif! their testimon! for themsel#es and for the "ur!. See (ed. ,. @#id. 91-3b5; see also United States #. Cheatwood$ /8/ (.7d 471$ 479 312th Cir.5$ cert denied, -:. U.S. 4/: 31.845. (inall!$ sua sponte dismissal of pro se complaints prior to ser#ice of process$ and without notice to the pro se litigant$ has been Buestioned as placing the "udge in the role of defense counsel$ !et is permissible in the ad#ersar! s!stem. See >ash #. ;lac%$ 841 (.7d 99/$ 994 34th Cir. 1.495; Tingler #. 'arshall$ 819 (.7d 112.$ 1111 39th Cir. 1.4:5; (ran%lin #. Oregon$ 997 (.7d 1::8$ 1:-7 3.th Cir. 1.415$ on remand, /9: (. Supp. 1:12 3<. Or. 1.4:5$ aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 8-/ (.7d 1771 3.th Cir. 1.4-5; see also +ollowa! #. GunnelJ$ 94/ (.7d 1/2$ 1/7 n.7 3/th Cir. 1.475 3defendant ma! want to reach the merits5.

15. , $#e (o $e1$ o& pro se li$i!a$io . so%e (o)r$s per%i$ %ore s)bs$a $ial i $r)sio s i $o $#e ad-ersar" pro(ess. ?or e1a%ple. (o)r$s assis$ pro se li$i!a $s i $#eir prese $a$io $o $#e 4)r" b" re-ie*i ! $#e li$i!a $s6 proposed 2)es$io s $o *i$ esses &or ad%issibili$" proble%s so as $o a-oid i $err)p$io s &ro% ob4e($i ! (o) sel d)ri ! $rial.@ Ao)r$s also ar$i()la$e $#e appropria$e le!al $#eor" o *#i(# a pro se li$i!a $6s (lai% s#o)ld res$ *#e $#e li$i!a $ %is) ders$a ds $#e a$)re o& #is (lai%. 'o$# pra($i(es are per%issible 4)di(ial i $er-e $io s o be#al& o& pro se li$i!a $s. See
'!ers #. United States$ 9:9 (.7d 199$ 19409. 39th Cir. 1.415; =atson #. Eult$ /7/ (.7d 449$ 4.1$ 4.9 3/th Cir. 1.895

17. a. To e s)re ade2)a$e a((ess. $#e (o)r$s. i $#e &irs$ i s$a (e. %a" re< 2)es$ $#a$ opposi ! (o) sel ass)%e $#e respo sibili$" o& pro-idi ! ade2)a$e o$i(e $o pro se li$i!a $s. See Cewis #. (aul%ner$ 94. (.7d 122$ 127 38th Cir. 1.475. b. ,&. #o*e-er. opposi ! (o) sel &ails $o (o%pl" *i$# $#e (o)r$6s re2)es$. $#e )l$i%a$e respo sibili$" %)s$ res$ *i$# $#e 4)di(iar" < See id. at 12:. (. o& $#e re2)ire%e $s o& opposi ! a %o$io &or s)%%ar" 4)d!%e $ *ill o$ b)rde $#e &ederal 4)di(iar"6s *or8load. See E#erhart #. Errendondo$ 88: (.7d .1.$ .72 38th Or. 1.4/5.

19. Re2)iri ! $rial 4)d!es $o ad-ise pro se li$i!a $s o& s)%%ar" 4)d!%e $ obli!a$io s ad-a (es $#e p)bli(6s i $eres$ i a((ordi ! p)bli( la* iss)es a (o%ple$e #eari !. The salient feature of public law litigation is that it see%s more than the resolution of a dispute between two pri#ate parties. See Cha!es$ /he 0ole of the
*udge in ublic ,aw ,itigation, 4. +ar#. C. ,e#. 1741$ 174- 31.895. &t in#ol#es issues of constitutional and statutor! significance. See id The relief in public law litigation is not onl! compensation for past harm$ but a decree that will direct future beha#ior. See id. The ,eport of the Stud! Group on the Caseload of the Supreme Court$ /8 (.,.<. /8: 31.875$ concluded that Hit is of the greatest importance to societ! as well as to the indi#idual that each meritorious IprisonerJ petition be identified and dealt with.H 1d. at /48.

2:. Pro se li$i!a $s #a-e %ade o$able (o $rib)$io s $o $#e basi( s$r)($)re o& A%eri(a la*. A pro se pe$i$io &iled b" Alare (e Gideo res)l$ed i $#e la d%ar8 #oldi ! o& Gideon v. Wainwright, Pro se li$i!a $s #a-e i i$ia$ed s)i$s $#a$ res)l$ed i la d%ar8
#oldi !s i $a1. (i-il ri!#$s. a d #abeas (orp)s la*.

See :87 U.S. ::/ 31.9:5 3right to counsel in all felon! cases5. See, e.g., Jac%son #. Statler (ound.$ -.9 (.7d 97:$ 97/079 37d Cir. 1.8-5 3non0prisoner pro se
raised the issue of first impression whether a ta) e)emption to a pri#ate foundation ma! constitute state action5. This case was termed Hthe most significant contest determined b! the Second Circuit in the 1.8:08- term.H (lanner! F ,obbins$ supra note :4$ at 88-. See, e.g., Sostre #. 'cGinnis$ --7 (.7d 184$ 141047 37d Cir. 1.815 3pro se prisoner challenged a one !ear imposition of solitar! confinement and seiDure of all his personal belongings5$ cert denied, -2- U.S. 12-. 31.875. Judge 6aufman characteriDed Sostre as presenting Himportant Buestions concerning the federal constitutional rights of state prisoners which neither Supreme Court precedent nor our own past decisions ha#e answered.H See id at 141. See also Procunier #. 'artineD$ -19 U.S. :.9$ -14 31.8-5 3broad censorship of prisoner*s mail #iolates the first amendment5; Johnson #. E#er!$ :.: U.S. -4:$ -.2 31.9.5 3right to assistance of "ailhouse law!ers to pursue habeas corpus relief5; Jac%son #. ;ishop$ -2- (.7d /81$ /8708/ 34th Cir. 1.945 3reBuiring reforms at the Tuc%er Prison (arm in Er%ansas5. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Johnson #. Chairman of >ew ?or% State ;d. of Parole$ /22 (.7d .7/$ .79 37d Cir. 1.8-5 3pro se prisoner*s habeas corpus petition raised the issue of whether a parole board must include a statement of its reasons when it denies a prisoner parole5.

21. B e (o)r$. #o*e-er. #olds $#a$ o priso er pro se li$i!a $s are o$ e $i$led $o o$i(e o& s)%%ar" 4)d!%e $ obli!a$io s as priso ers are be(a)se o priso ers -ol) $aril" appear pro se. A o$#er (o)r$ li%i$s 4)di(ial o$i&i(a$io o& s)%%ar" 4)d!%e $ obli!a$io s $o priso ers a d re(e $l" released priso ers. basi ! $#eir #oldi ! o $#e #a di(aps o& de$e $io . T#ese dis$i ($io s -iola$e $#e e2)al pro$e($io (la)se o& $#e &o)r$ee $# a%e d%e $ a d i! ore $#e reali$" $#a$ $#e #a di(aps o& pro se represe $a$io are s#ared b" priso ers a d o priso ers ali8e. See Jacobsen #. (iller$ 8.2 (.7d 1:97$ 1:9-09/ 3.th Cir. 1.495. See +am #. Smith$ 9/: (.7d 974$ 97.0:1 3<.C. Cir. 1.415 3per curiam5.

The <istrict of Columbia Court of Eppeals cases reBuiring procedural lenienc! toward pro se litigants in the summar! "udgment area emphasiDe the burdens of restricted mo#ement as necessitating "udicial assistance. &n the 1.92*s and 1.82*s the court repeat edl! stressed the handicaps that incarceration imposes on a pro se litigant. See, e.g., Curr! #. ;rown$ --2 (.7d 7/.$ 797 n.4 3<.C. Cir. 1.815; +udson #. +ard!$ -17 (.7d 12.1$ 12.-0./ 3<.C. Cir. 1.945; Phillips #. United States ;d. of Parole$ :/7 (.7d 811$81: 3<.C. Cir. 1.9/5 3per curiam5. &n the 1.42*s$ howe#er$ the court appears to ha#e e)tended its procedural protection to all pro se litigants. See +am #. Smith$ 9/: (.7d 974$ 97.0:2 3<.C. Cir. 1.415 3per curiam5 3HThis court has recogniDed that district "udges should accord special attention to pro se litigants faced with summar! "udgment motions.H5. The court maintains that the handicaps of detention necessitate "udicial ad#isement of the summar! "udgment rule to prisoner pro se litigants. See id at 9:2. The court asserts$ howe#er$ that "udges also must assist pro se litigants recentl! released from prison because the! are li%el! to shoulder similar disad#antages as prisoners. See id. The handicap lin%ing the prisoner pro se litigant to his nonprisoner counterpart would seem to be indigenc!. Elthough statistics are not a#ailable demonstrating wh! pro se litigants appear as such$ it has been suggested that an inabilit! to obtain counsel spawns most prisoner$ see 'erritt #. (aul%ner$ 9.8 (.7d 891$ 89. 38th Cir.5 3Cudah!$ J.$ concurring5$ cert, denied, -9- U.S. .49 31.4:5$ and nonprisoner$ see Jacobsen #. (iller$ 8.2 (.7d 1:97$ 1:9894 3.th Cir. 1.495 3,einhardt$ J.$ dissenting5 pro se appearances.

22. T#e e2)al pro$e($io (la)se o& $#e &o)r$ee $# a%e d%e $ does o$ e1pli(i$l" appl" $o a($io s o& $#e &ederal !o-er %e $. ?ederal (lassi&i(a$io s. #o*e-er. $#a$ *o)ld (o $ra-e e $#e e2)al pro$e($io (la)se i& $#e" *ere s$a$e (lassi&i(a$io s. -iola$e $#e d)e pro(ess (la)se o& $#e &i&$# a%e d%e $. E2)al pro$e($io does o$ re2)ire absol)$e e2)ali$" or pre(isel" e2)al ad-a $a!esC i$ re2)ires o l" $#a$ people *#o are si%ilarl" si$)a$ed be $rea$ed si%ilarl". T#e e2)al pro$e($io (la)se applies $o ad%i is$ra$i-e as *ell as le!isla$i-e (lassi&i(a$io s. T#ere&ore. $#e (lassi&i(a$io o& o priso er pro se li$i!a $s as o be e&i(iaries o& s)%%ar" 4)d!%e $ o$i&i(a$io a((orded priso er pro se li$i!a $s is s)b4e($ $o e2)al pro$e($io a al"sis. U der $radi$io al e2)al pro$e($io a al"sis. ) less $#e (lassi&i(a$io i &ri !es o a &) da%e $al ri!#$ or i -ol-es a s)spe($ (lassi&i(a$io . i$ eed o l" be ra$io all" rela$ed $o a le!i$i%a$e e d. ,& $#e (lassi&i(a$io does i &ri !e a &) da%e $al ri!#$ or i -ol-e a s)spe($ (lassi&i(a$io . i$ %)s$ be e(essar" $o e&&e($)a$e a (o%pelli ! s$a$e i $eres$. ,$ is *ell es$ablis#ed $#a$ $#e ri!#$ o& a((ess $o $#e (o)r$s is &) da%e $al.
Al$#o)!# $#e ri!#$ is par$i()larl" (r)(ial $o priso ers. $#e ri!#$ is &) da%e $al $o all perso s. *#e$#er i (ar(era$ed or &ree. T#)s. (lassi&i(a$io s i%pi !i ! o $#e ri!#$ %)s$ be (losel" rela$ed $o $#e pro%o$io o& a (o%pelli ! s$a$e i $eres$.

H>o State shall... den! to an! person within its "urisdiction the eBual protection of the laws.H See U. S. Const amend. N&A$ M 1. See =einberger #. =iesenfeld$ -72 U.S. 9:9$ 9:4 n.7 31.8/5; Schlesinger #. ;allard$ -1. U.S.
-.4$ /22 n.: 31.8/5; ,ichardson #. ;elcher$ -2- U.S. 84$ 41 31.815; ;oiling #. Sharpe$ :-8 U.S. -.8$ -.. 31./-5. See generally 6arst$ /he 'ifth "mendment's 2uarantee of 34ual rotection, // >.C.C. ,e#. /-2 31.885 3discussing the legitimac! of appl!ing the mandates of eBual protection to the federal go#ernment5. See ,oss #. 'offitt$ -18 U.S. 922$ 917 31.8-5; ,ub! #. 'asse!$ -/7 (. Supp. :91$ :98 3<. Conn. 1.845; J. >owa%$ ,. ,otunda F J. ?oung$ Constitutional Caw M 1-.7$ at /7/ 3:d ed. 1.495. See Trimble #. Gordon$ -:2 U.S. 897$ 842 3,ehnBuist$ J.$ dissenting5 31.885; +a0gans #. Ca#ine$ -1/ U.S. /74$ /:40:. 31.8-5; Sil#a #. Aowell$ 971 (.7d 9-2$ 9-8 3/th Cir. 1.425$ cert, denied, --. U.S. 117/ 31.415. See, e.g., ;uc%le! #. Co!le Pub. School S!s.$ -89 (.7d .7$ .9 312th Cir. 1.8:5 3administrati#e polic! of dismissal of school teachers at si)th month of pregnanc!5. See Cabell #. Cha#eD0Salido$ -/- U.S. -:7$ -:- 31.475; Jones #. +elms$ -/7 U.S. -17$ -7:0731.415; United States <ep*t of Egric. #. 'oreno$ -1: U.S. /74$ /:: 31.8:5. E right is fundamental when the Constitution e)plicitl! or implicitl! guarantees the right. See San Entonio &ndep. School <ist. #. ,odrigueD$ -11 U.S. 1$ ::0:- 31.8:5. Aarious implicit fundamental rights ha#e been ac%nowledged b! the Supreme Court. See, e.g., <unn #. ;lumstein$

-2/ U.S. ::2$ ::4 31.875 3#oting and interstate tra#el5; ;ulloc% #. Carter$ -2/ U.S. 1:-$ 1-20-31.875 3right to #ote5; Shapiro #. Thompson$ :.- U.S. 914$ 9:20:1 31.9.5 3same5; Co#ing #. Airginia$ :44 U.S. 1$ 17 31.985 3marriage5; Griswold #. Connecticut$ :41 U.S. -8.$ -4-04/ 31.9/5 3right to use contracepti#es5. See, e.g., =ashington #. <a#is$ -79 U.S. 77.$ 7:. 31.895 3race5; +ernandeD #. Te)as$ :-8 U.S. -8/$ -84 31./-5 3national origin5. See =illiams #. Aermont$ -87 U.S. 1-$ 7707: 31.4/5; <andridge #. =illiams$ :.8 U.S. -81$ -4/ 31.825. See San Entonio &ndep. School <ist. #. ,odrigueD$ -11 U.S. 1$ -2 31.8:5; ;ulloc% #. Carter$ -2/ U.S. 1:-$ 1-- 31.875. See ;ounds #. Smith$ -:2 U.S. 418$ 474 31.885; ;onner #. Cit! of Prichard$ 991 (.7d 1729$ 1717 311th Cir. 1.415; CruD #. +auc%$ -8/ (.7d -8/$ -89 3/th Cir. 1.8:5.

See =olff #. 'c<onnell$ -14 U.S. /:.$ /// 31.8-5; Johnson #. E#er!$ :.: U.S. -4:$ -4/ 31.9.5; (a! #. >oia$ :87 U.S. :.1$ -27 31.9:5; see also ;rown #. Ellen$ :-- U.S. --:$ /27 31./:5 3(ran%furter$ J.$ concurring5 3Hlac% of technical
competence of prisoners should not strangle consideration of a #alid constitutional claim that is bunglingl! presentedH5; Griffith #. =ainwright$ 887 (.7d 477$ 47/ 311th Cir. 1.4/5 3Hespecial care . . . must be e)ercised when an action is brought alleging denial of basic constitutional liberties b! an indigent prisoner lac%ing formal legal trainingH5; 'erritt #. (aul%ner$ 9.8 (.7d 891$ 89: 38th Cir.5 3Hwhen rights of a constitutional dimension are at sta%e$ a poor person*s access to the federal courts must not be turned into an e)ercise in futilit!H5$ cert, denied, -9- U.S. .49 31.4:5; United States ex rel 'arcial #. (a!$ 7-8 (.7d 997$ 99. 37d Cir. 1./85 3en banc5 H3IwJe must not pla! fast and loose with basic constitutional rights in the interest of administrati#e efficienc!H5$ cert, denied, :// U.S. .1/ 31./45. See Wolff, -14 U.S. at /8.; CruD #. ;eto$ -2/ U.S. :1.$ :71 31.875; Johnson #. Enderson$ :82 (. Supp. 1:8:$ 1:4: 3<. <el. 1.8-5.

2+.

T#e 4)di(iar" #as $*o possible i $eres$s i i%posi ! res$ri($io s o $#e ri!#$ o& a((essC &is(al ob4e($i-es a d ad%i is$ra$i-e ob4e($i-es. ;#e e-al)a$i ! e(o o%i( barriers $o $#e ri!#$ o& a((ess i (i-il (ases. $#e (o)r$s are rel)($a $ $o i%pose $#e (os$s o& li$i!a$io o $#e !o-er %e $. T#e !o-er %e $6s i $eres$ i preser-i ! 4)di(ial &) ds. #o*e-er. is o$ i%pli(a$ed b" e1$e di ! (er$ai pro(ed)ral assis$a (e $o all pro se li$i!a $s. Moreo-er. %os$ pro se li$i!a $s alread" are a((orded si! < i&i(a $ &i a (ial assis$a (e &ro% $#e 4)di(iar". J)di(ial o$i&i(a$io i -ol-es o &i a (ial e1pe di$)res b" $#e 4)di(iar". ?i all". si (e %os$ (o)r$s (learl" a(8 o*led!e $#e ri!#$ o& priso er pro se li$i!a $s $o s)%%ar" 4)d!%e $ o$i&i(a$io . a d i e$"<&i-e per(e $ o& pro se li$i!a $s are priso ers. i$ is abs)rd $o (o $e d $#a$ ad-isi ! $#e re%ai i ! &i-e per(e $ o& pro se li$i!a $s ) d)l" drai s !o-er %e $ reso)r(es.

See 'athews #. @ldridge$ -7- U.S. :1.$ ::/ 31.895. See, )g., Ortwein #. Schwab$ -12 U.S. 9/9$ 992 31.8:5 3per curiam5 3indigents ha#e no right to wai#er of S7/ filing fee necessar! for "udicial re#iew of administrati#e denial of welfare pa!ments5; United States #. 6ras$ -2. U.S. -:-$--. 31.8:5 3indigent has no right to wai#er of S/2 filing fee in #oluntar! ban%ruptc! proceedings5; Johnson #. +ubbard$ 9.4 (.7d 749$ 74. 39th Cir. 1.4:5 3indigent has no right to ha#e state pa! witness fees5. But see ;oddie #. Connecticut$ -21 U.S. :81$ :47 31.815 3indigents entitled
to wai#er of filing fees in di#orce actions5. @ight!0four percent of pro se litigants commence ci#il actions without prepa!ment of fees under 74 U.S.C. M 1.1/3a5 31.475. See Keigler F +ermann$ supra note -$ at 148 n.117. See generally >ote$ "id for 1ndigent ,itigants in the 'ederal (ourts, /4 Colum. C. ,e#. 4:7 31./45 3discussing the #alue of permitting indigents to file suits without prepa!ment of fees5; >ote$ ,itigation (osts! /he Hidden Barrier to the 1ndigent, /9 Geo. C.J. /19 31.945 3same5. See E#erhart #. Errendondo$ 88: (.7d .1.$ .72 38th Cir. 1.4/5. The notification ma! in#ol#e cost of postage when the "udge or his cler%s are not in direct contact with the pro se litigant Postage e)penditures of indigent pro se litigants$ howe#er$ are alread! pro#ided for b! the go#ernment See ;ounds #. Smith$ -:2 U.S. 418$ 47-07/ 31.885; 6ing #. Eti!eh$ >o. 4/0-18-$ slip op. at /09 3.th Cir. Epril 4$ 1.485.

See, )g., Jacobsen #. (iller$ 8.2 (.7d 1:97$ 1:9- 3.th Cir. 1.495; 'oore #. (lorida$ 82: (.7d
/19$ /72 311th Cir. 1.4:5; +udson #. +ard!$ -17 (.7d 12.1$ 12.-0./ 3<.C. Cir. 1.945. See Keigler F +ermann$ supra note -$ at 1/.092.

20. No priso er pro se li$i!a $s (o%prise s)(# a s%all par$ o& all pro se li$i!a$io $#a$ %a " 4)d!es belie-e $#ese (ases do o$ prese $ a b)rde o $#e 4)di(iar" a$ all. T#e Ao)r$ o& Appeals &or $#e Se-e $# Air()i$. $#e (ir()i$ (o)r$ $#a$ #ears $#e %os$ priso er (i-il ri!#$s pe$i$io s. re(e $l" o$ed $#a$ 4)di(ial o$i&i(a$io o& s)%%ar" 4)d!%e $ obli!a$io s $o pro se li$i!a $s @s#o)ld alle-ia$e a i 4)s$i(e. *i$#o)$ addi ! $o $#e *or8load o& $#e . . . (o)r$DsE.@ T#e e1(l)sio o& &i-e per(e $ o& pro se li$i!a $s &ro% $#e #ei!#$e ed pro(ed)ral soli(i$)de a((orded priso er pro se li$i!a $s bears li$$le rela$io $o $#e 4)di(iar"6s ad%i is$ra$i-e ob4e($i-e o& lesse i ! $#e *or8load o& $#e (o)r$s. T#e ra$io ale o& (o)r$s $#a$ li%i$ o$i&i(a$io o& $#e re2)ire%e $s o& $#e s)%%ar" 4)d!%e $ r)le $o priso er pro se li$i!a $s are i -alid !i-e $#e (ir()%s$a (es a$$e da $ %os$ pro se appeara (es. See Committee$ supra note 42$ at 12.. See Ennual ,eport of the <irector of the Edministrati#e Office of the United States Courts$ Twel#e 'onth Period @nded June :2$ 1.49$ at 1-. The Se#enth Circuit entertained 8: prisoner ci#il rights appeals. The ne)t highest was the Third Circuit with -1. See id.
See E#erhart #. Errendondo$ 88: (.7d .1.$ .72 38th Cir. 1.4/5.