◆ SpookStack

. oe 4 > a age a tm | ght to bring these Appellees to justice in Civil Action,sin- ce he cannot prosecute criminal cases,and the United States Department of Justice will not seek indictments against the- se criminals. and vigorously prosecute them as other citizens of the United States.28 USC § 1654 authorizes any person right to prosecute their own case,with or without attorney,that is the law.And the doctrine of "Stare Decisis" requires Courts that once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a ce- rtain state of facts,it will adhere to that principle,See Patterson vs.McLean Credit Union, 491 US 164,105 L Ed 2d 132, 109 S Ct 2363(1989).In Haines vs.Kerner, 404 US 519 at 520, 521,92 S Ct 594,30 L Ed 2d 652(1972),The petitioner. an inmate —at—the-Illinois.State Penitentiary,filed Civil. Rights suit against certain state officials,the Governor of the State, the case were heard in the U.S.Supreme Court,and that Court held as follows in part: ¥ "The--District. .Court..granted. respondents' motion under Rule 12(b)(6)...to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, -»ethat petitioner had failed to show a deprivation of federally protected rights.The Court of Appeals affirmed,...We granted certiorari and appointed co- unsel to represent petitioner.The only issue now. before us is petitioner’ s contention that the Distr- ict Court erred in dismissing his Pro Se complaint Without allowing him to present evidence on his cla- ima....,However inartfully pleaded,are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evi- dence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the Pro Se Complaint, which we held to less stringenr standards than formal pleading drafted by lawyers,if appears "Beyond doubt that the petitioner can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.... although we intimate no view whatever on the. merits of petitioner’ S allegations,we conclude that he is -21-