Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

378 U.S. 546

84 S. Ct. 1733

12 L. Ed. 2d 1030

Docket No. 1134, Misc.

Cooper v. Pate

Supreme Court of the United States

June 22, 1964.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1964-06-22

Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled for the first time that state prison inmates have the standing to sue in federal court to address their grievances under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. This case followed Jones v. Cunningham (1963) allowing prison inmates to employ a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their sentencing and the conditions of their imprisonment.

Source: Wikipedia ↗

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“take as true the allegations of the complaint”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including 587 F. Supp. 841 - Esfahani v. Citibank, N.A., Weaver v. Pate

“solely because of his religious beliefs he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Weaver v. Pate

Relies on James Pierce v. J. E. La Vallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, Martin T. Sostre v. J. E. La Vallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, William Sa Marion v. J. E. La Vallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York · Theodore X. A. Sewell v. Paul F. Pegelow, Etc., Joseph X. Watson v. Paul F. Pegelow, Etc. · Thomas Cooper v. Frank J. Pate, Warden

Cited together with Conley v. Gibson · Haines v. Kerner · Cruz v. Beto

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · 9–0 · Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1964-06-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,240 later decisions (37 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Estelle v. Gamble (1976), Wolff v. McDonnell (1974)

458 federal appellate · 135 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 12 states

49501964197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Alex Elson and Bernard Weisberg, for petitioner.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen. of Illinois, and Raymond S. Sarnow and Edward A. Berman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.

¶2

The petitioner, an inmate at the Illinois State Penitentiary, brought an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1979 of the Revised Statutes, alleging that solely because of his religious beliefs he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners. The District Court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 324 F.2d 165 (C.A.7th Cir.). We reverse the judgment below. Taking as true the allegations of the complaint, as they must be on a motion to dismiss, the complaint stated a cause of action and it was error to dismiss it. See Pierce v. LaVallee, 293 F.2d 233 (C.A.2d Cir.); Sewell v. Pegelow, 291 F.2d 196 (C.A.4th Cir.).

/378/us/546 · .json · Public domain