Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

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

Robert Harry Esser v. Walter Weller (Guard) State Corr. Inst. Huntingdon, Pa., 467 F.2d 949 (3d Cir. 1972)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1972-10-06
Topic: general

How later courts describe this case

“a complaint must specifically state facts in sup port of its conclusions”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Robert Harry Esser v. Walter Weller (Guard) State Correctional Institution Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 29 opinions

ESSER v. WELLER,467 F.2d 949(3rd Cir. 1972)

ROBERT HARRY ESSER, APPELLANT, v. WALTER WELLER (GUARD) STATE CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION HUNTINGDON, PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 71-1980.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted September 29, 1972.

Decided October 6, 1972.

Robert Harry Esser, pro se.

Curtis M. Pontz, Deputy Atty. Gen., Department of Justice, Harrisburg, Pa., for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Before STALEY, VAN DUSEN and MAX ROSENN, Circuit Judges.

[1] OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

[2] Plaintiff, an inmate at the Huntingdon 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.

[3] 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 boisterousPage 950prisoner; and that Weller took away plaintiff's notes of testimony.

[4] 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).

[5] The broad and conclusory statements made in plaintiff's complaint are not supported by specific factual allegations.¹Therefore, the complaint fails to meet the test set forth in Negrich 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).

[6] The order of the district court will be affirmed.Page 1124

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 "committed to the punishment block." ↩