Legal Opinion
Garlington v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided July 1, 2014No. Civil Action No. 2013-1840PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge
Courts allow leeway to parties proceeding pro se to ensure access to the judicial system even for those persons who lack an understanding of the procedural and substantive requirements of litigation. See Moore v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 994 F.2d 874, 876 (D.C.Cir.1993) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (“Pro se litigants are allowed more latitude than litigants represented by counsel to correct defects in service of process and pleadings.”)); Childers v. Slater, 197 F.R.D. 185, 188…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Jarrell v. TischDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1987
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Abbas v. Bundersrepublik DeutschlandDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2020
- Anand v. U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2023
- Bell v. MattisDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
- Bird v. Globus Medical, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2020
- Breen v. MinetaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.