Robert Harry Esser v. Walter Weller (Guard) State Correctional Institution Huntingdon, Pennsylvania

467 F.2d 949, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7263
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedOctober 6, 1972
Docket71-1980
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 467 F.2d 949 (Robert Harry Esser v. Walter Weller (Guard) State Correctional Institution Huntingdon, Pennsylvania) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robert Harry Esser v. Walter Weller (Guard) State Correctional Institution Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, 467 F.2d 949, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7263 (3d Cir. 1972).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Hunting-don Correctional Institution, has appealed from an order of the district court dismissing his civil rights action against Walter Weller, a guard, as frivolous and without merit.

The complaint broadly charges, inter alia, that Weller harassed the plaintiff by threatening him; that he caused mental distress by assigning the plaintiff to a cell below the cell of a boister *950 ous prisoner; and that Weller took away plaintiff’s notes of testimony.

This court has stressed that complaints in civil rights cases must “contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim . . . and the relief . . .” sought. F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and (3); Gaito v. Ellenbogen, 425 F.2d 845 (3d Cir. 1970).

The broad and conclusory statements made in plaintiff’s complaint are not supported by specific factual allegations. 1 Therefore, the complaint fails to meet the test set forth in Ne-grich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967), that a complaint must specifically state facts in support of its conclusions in order to avoid a motion to dismiss. See Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270 (3d Cir. 1970).

The order of the district court will be affirmed.

1

. Plaintiff’s complaint contains the allegation that “Defendant . . . took away plaintiff’s Legal-document (Notes of Testimony), for same was in plaintiff’s personal belongings prior to plaintiff sitting on the bench in the Guard-Room.” This may have occurred on or about May 2, 1971, when plaintiff was being “com-mittecl to the punishment block.”

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

Related

Fuller v. Harding
699 F. Supp. 64 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1988)
District Council 47 v. Bradley
795 F.2d 310 (Third Circuit, 1986)
Hauptmann v. Wilentz
570 F. Supp. 351 (D. New Jersey, 1983)
Mines v. Kahle
557 F. Supp. 1030 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1983)
Cardio-Medical Associates, Ltd v. Crozer-Chester Medical Center
536 F. Supp. 1065 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1982)
Sturts v. City of Philadelphia
529 F. Supp. 434 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1982)
Three Rivers Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh
502 F. Supp. 1118 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1980)
Brady v. Washington County, Tenn.
509 F. Supp. 538 (E.D. Tennessee, 1980)
Boddorff v. Publicker Industries, Inc.
488 F. Supp. 1107 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1980)
United States v. City of Philadelphia
482 F. Supp. 1274 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1979)
Albright v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
463 F. Supp. 1220 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1979)
Kedra v. City of Philadelphia
454 F. Supp. 652 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1978)
Flesch v. Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute
434 F. Supp. 963 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1977)
Culp v. Devlin
437 F. Supp. 20 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1977)
Jones v. McElroy
429 F. Supp. 848 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1977)
United States ex rel. Bryant v. Shapp
423 F. Supp. 471 (D. Delaware, 1976)
Vazquez v. Ferre
404 F. Supp. 815 (D. New Jersey, 1975)
Esser v. Jeffes
416 F. Supp. 719 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
467 F.2d 949, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-harry-esser-v-walter-weller-guard-state-correctional-institution-ca3-1972.