From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Battle v. Seago

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 20, 1993
208 Ga. App. 516 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)

Summary

applying “no set of facts” pleading standard, taken from Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80

Summary of this case from Bush v. Bank of New York Mellon

Opinion

A93A0880.

DECIDED APRIL 20, 1993.

Sexual harassment. Clinch Superior Court. Before Judge Findley, pro hac vice.

Terry L. Battle, pro se. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Daryl A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Terry L. Long, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.


This is a sexual harassment action filed pro se by a male inmate against a woman employee of the Department of Corrections. An order denying filing pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-2 (d) was entered and plaintiff Battle appeals. Held:

Under the statutory provision, the order denying filing is treated the same as a dismissal. "`"A pro se complaint is not held to stringent standards of formal pleadings, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) ( Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926 (1) (4th Cir. 1977)), and the `complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). See also J. Moore, 2A Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 12.08 at 2265-86 (1972)." Hughes v. Roth, 371 F. Supp. 740, 741 (D.C.Pa. 1974).' Johnson v. Jones, 178 Ga. App. 346, 349 ( 343 S.E.2d 403)." Baxley v. Sutter, 203 Ga. App. 579 ( 417 S.E.2d 205). See also Johnson v. Jones, supra.

The complaint in the case sub judice clearly states a claim actionable under 42 USCA § 1983. Plaintiff has not relied on general allegations, but has stated specific allegations of misconduct on the part of defendant Seago within the period of the statute of limitation. Prisoners are entitled to the protection of the Eighth Amendment from sexual harassment at the hands of prison staff. While Plaintiff's allegations are somewhat bizarre, we cannot assume that they did not occur. See McKenzie v. State of Wisconsin, Dept. of Corrections, 138 FRD 554, 555, and Vang v. Toyed, 944 F.2d 476 (9th Cir.). The superior court erred in denying the filing of plaintiff's complaint.

Judgment reversed. Johnson and Blackburn, JJ., concur.

DECIDED APRIL 20, 1993.


Summaries of

Battle v. Seago

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 20, 1993
208 Ga. App. 516 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)

applying “no set of facts” pleading standard, taken from Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80

Summary of this case from Bush v. Bank of New York Mellon
Case details for

Battle v. Seago

Case Details

Full title:BATTLE v. SEAGO

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Apr 20, 1993

Citations

208 Ga. App. 516 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)
431 S.E.2d 148

Citing Cases

Mosier v. State Bd. of Pardons c

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Battle v. Seago, 208 Ga. App. 516 ( 431 S.E.2d 148) (1993). Mosier…

Mattox v. Bailey

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Battle v. Seago, 208 Ga. App. 516, 516 ( 431 S.E.2d 148) (1993). In this…