Howard v. King
- Decided
- June 16, 1983
- Docket
- 83-3154
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,974 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a district court was “required to look beyond the inmates’ formal complaint and to consider as amendments to the complaint those materials subsequently filed” — San Miguel v. McLane (2024)
- noting that a good faith claim “does not require that probable success be shown” — Kriss Camp v. Kenneth Putnam (2020)
- explaining that, when a district court is considering a motion to dismiss in a case filed by a pro se plaintiff, the court is “required to look beyond the [plaintiff’s] formal complaint and to consider as amendments to the complaint those material subsequently filed” — (untitled) (2026)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
707 F.2d 215 Clinton C. HOWARD, Jr., and Michael Chapman and Kenneth Robinson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John T. KING, Secretary, Department of Corrections, and Ross Maggio, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 83-3154.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (1983)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.