Case law · Appeals court · Federal

Charles Richard Stone v. Rick Harry Anita Schlank Deborah Konieska Rhonda Heskin Amy Anderson Lori Parkos Jim Lind

Decided
April 14, 2004
Docket
03-1479
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 3,074 timesNo negative treatment found in this library

What later courts said

  • holding that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint” — Schmaltz v. Harris (2024)
  • holding that the district court is not required “to assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint” — Seals v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (2023)
  • explaining that, although pro se complaints must be liberally construed, they must allege sufficient facts to support the claims that are advanced — Sanders v. Dubuque County (2019)

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

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Charles Stone appeals the district court’s [1] dismissal of his federal constitutional claims and related state claims. Stone is a civilly committed patient in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“the Program”) at Moose Lake, Minnesota. He was committed to the program as a “psychopathic personality.” See In the Matter of Charles Richard Stone, 376 N.W.2d 511, 512-14 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). Appellees are staff or administrators of the Program.

On January 4, 2002, Stone filed a pro se complaint and “more formal statement” in the district court, alleging violations of his federal and state constitutional rights, as well as violations of federal and Minnesota law. The complaint documents alleged the following: On several days in the fall of 2001, Stone’s room at the Moose Lake facility was searched by Program staff. These searches were conducted for various reasons, including allegations from other patients that Stone had access to the Internet in violation of Program rules, that Stone had been engaging in fraudulent activities, and that Stone had child pornography on his computer. The results of the searches led to disciplinary hearings, both because Stone violated a Program rule restricting the number of items he could have in his room, and because contraband was allegedly discovered. After these hearings, Program staff restricted a number of Stone’s privileges, and reduced his “security rating.”

Cite this

Charles Richard Stone v. Rick Harry Anita Schlank Deborah Konieska Rhonda Heskin Amy Anderson Lori Parkos Jim Lind, 364 F.3d 912 (2004)

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.