◆ SpookStack

a we oe , Per Curiam / {4U.S, Petitioner's pro se complaint wis premised on alleged action of prison officials placing’ him in solitary confine: ment as a disciplinary measuré after he had struck ans other inmate on the head wth a shovel following 8 verbal altercation, The assauit by petitioner on another . inmate ig not denied. Petitioner's pro se complaint in- cluded general allegations of physical injuries suffered while in disciplinary confinement and denial of due proce ess in the steps leading to that confinement, The claimed physical suffering was aggravation of a pre- existing foot injury and a circulatory ailment caused by forcing him to sleep on the floor of his cell with only blankets, The District Court granted respondents’ motion under Rule 12 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon Which relief could be granted, suggesting that only under * exceptional circumstances should courts inquire into the internal operations of state penitentiaries and concluding that petitioner had failed to show a deprivation of fed: erally protected rights, The Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing that prison officals are vested with “wide discretion” in disciplinary ‘matters, anted cer tiorari and appointed counsel to represent petitioner, The only Issue now before us 1s petitioner's contention that the District Court erred 1 in dismissing his pro se complaint without allowing him to present evidence on Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, how. ever inartfully pleaded, are sufficient. to call for the Opportunity to offer supporting evidence, We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent stand. ards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears ,Y y "” a ’ 4 neh Oe, *¢ . “3 . . "y J aan HAlNbO t, ALKAVEK 59 519 Per Curiam “beyond doubt that the plaintiff’ can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. §, 41, 45-46 (1957), * See Dioguardi v, Durning, 139 F, 2d 774 (CA2 1944), Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of petitioner's allegations, we conclude that "he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof, The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for fur- Lt oa. iy. ther proceedings consistent herewith, Reversed and remanded, wey ' ' e'tueten EON Fas Ma, dcomee Powe and Ma, Josmice Reawguisn vf, tookino part in the consideration or decision of this ease ~~”