Legal Opinion

Raineri v. United States

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided December 1, 2000No. 99-2359PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SELYA, Circuit Judge.

The federal courts historically have been solicitous of the rights of pro se litigants. E.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam); Prou v. United States, 199 F.3d 37, 42 (1st Cir.1999). As part and parcel of that solicitude, courts frequently have recharacterized inartfully drawn pleadings to assist pro se prisoners who mistakenly relied on inappropriate rules or statutes. The enactment of the Antiter-rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) (codified in scattered…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Slack v. McDanielSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Stewart v. Martinez-VillarealSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  5. United States v. Quentin Miller, A/K/A "Q" Quentin MillerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Castro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  2. Bucci v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2015
  3. United States v. Shahborn EmmanuelCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2002
  4. Mathilde Muniz v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
  5. Michael Henderson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001

36 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