Cap S. McElroy v. Karen Swan

Sixth Circuit

Cap S. McElroy v. Karen Swan

457 F.2d 1303, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10328

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 1972

Docket71-1330

StatusPublished

This text of 457 F.2d 1303 (Cap S. McElroy v. Karen Swan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cap S. McElroy v. Karen Swan, 457 F.2d 1303, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10328 (6th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was filed April 9, 1971, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two days later the District Court, acting sua sponte, dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction, for the reason that plaintiff claims damages amounting to only $501.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued two city policemen and the wife of a city policeman, charging a conspiracy resulting in the confinement of plaintiff in jail for nine days, in lieu of payment of a fine.

The statutory jurisdictional amount required in diversity cases does not apply to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, suing for constitutional infringement of a right of personal liberty. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 412 n. 1, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1967); Douglas v. Jeannette, 319 *1304 U.S. 157, 161, 63 S.Ct. 877, 87 L.Ed. 1324 (1943); Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 531, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939); Detroit Edison Co. v. East China Township School District, 378 F.2d 225, 228 (6th Cir. 1967); Glicker v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission, 160 F.2d 96, 98 (6th Cir. 1947).

In addition to averring jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaint in the present case also alleged diversity jurisdiction, although showing on its face that plaintiff and all defendants are citizens of Toledo, Ohio. This pro se complaint will be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings prepared by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).

We hold that the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint. Azar v. Conley, 456 F.2d 1382 (6th Cir., 1972).

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This action was filed April 9, 1971, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two days later the District Court, acting sua sponte, dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction, for the reason that plaintiff claims damages amounting to only $501.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued two city policemen and the wife of a city policeman, charging a conspiracy resulting in the confinement of plaintiff in jail for nine days, in lieu of payment of a fine.

The statutory jurisdictional amount required in diversity cases does not apply to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, suing for constitutional infringement of a right of personal liberty. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 412 n. 1, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1967); Douglas v. Jeannette, 319 *1304 U.S. 157, 161, 63 S.Ct. 877, 87 L.Ed. 1324 (1943); Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 531, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939); Detroit Edison Co. v. East China Township School District, 378 F.2d 225, 228 (6th Cir. 1967); Glicker v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission, 160 F.2d 96, 98 (6th Cir. 1947).

In addition to averring jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaint in the present case also alleged diversity jurisdiction, although showing on its face that plaintiff and all defendants are citizens of Toledo, Ohio. This pro se complaint will be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings prepared by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).

We hold that the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint. Azar v. Conley, 456 F.2d 1382 (6th Cir., 1972).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 F.2d 1303, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cap-s-mcelroy-v-karen-swan-ca6-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack