Legal Opinion

Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Co.

District Court, N.D. Indiana

Decided August 6, 1985No. Civ. S 84-488PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

WILLIAM C. LEE, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.

Petitioner is proceeding pro se. Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). The district court’s role is to ensure that the claims of pro se litigants are given “fair and meaningful consideration.” Matzker v. Herr, 748 F.2d 1142, 1146 (7th Cir.1984); Caruth v. Pinkney, 683 F.2d 1044, 1050 (7th Cir.1982). This court also recognizes that federal…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company and Nu-Car Carriers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
  4. Edward James Matzker, Jr. v. Raymond Herr, Sheriff, Richard A. Schaab, Lt. And Mary Pearsall, Corrections OfficerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
  5. Alsansa X. Caruth v. Thaddeus E. Pinkney, Warden, David Sandahl, Assistant Warden, and William O'sullivan, Assistant WardenCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2010
  2. Rene v. CITIBANK NADistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1999
  3. Thiel v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1986
  4. Nixon v. RoseDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1985
  5. Genesee Scrap & Tin Baling Co. v. City of RochesterDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2008

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API