Coleman v. Peyton
4th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Daniel Jackson v. D. Dameron 4th Cir.
- 2025Collins v. Antonelli D.S.C.
- 2024Jesse Keith v. J. Streeval 4th Cir.
- 2024Harris v. Faulcon E.D. Va.
- 2024Pulley v. Zoley E.D. Va.
- 2023Shreve v. Stephenson E.D.N.C.
- 2023Johnson v. Astorg Auto of Charleston Inc. S.D.W. Va
- 2023Yomi v. DeJoy D. Maryland
- 2023Herriott v. Burton D.S.C.
- 2020Sanders v. Fellowship Health Resources E.D.N.C.
Cites 2 statutes
- Civil action for deprivation of rights
- Civil rights and elective franchise
Cites 1 case
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
J. Ferber COLEMAN, Appellant, v. Courtland C. PEYTON, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, Appellee.
Attorneys
- Ronald P. Sokol, Charlottesville, Va. (Court-assigned counsel), for appellant.
- Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, on brief), for appellee.
This is an appeal from the district court's denial, without an evidential hearing, of the petitioner’s pro se petition requesting an order commanding the prison officials of the Commonwealth of Virginia to cease and desist from interfering with his rights to use the United States mails. The prisoner’s petition alleges in substance that the respondent has refused to mail his letters addressed to the N.A.A.C.P. and the Office of the Attorney General of the United States seeking legal assistance. In addition he asserts that some enclosures were extracted by prison authorities without his knowledge or approval from certain of his letters which were mailed. Finally, the petitioner claims that he “is being denied his right of access to the courts” and that he has been “subjected to personal reprisals” for seeking to acquire counsel to assert his rights under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3).
Some of these allegations are concededly rather vague and general,, and the petition contains no particularized statement of background facts and conduct. However, we feel that claims of legal substance should not be forfeited because of a failure to state them with technical precision. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 502, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (separate opinion of Frankfurter, J.). Coleman's petition alleges nonfrivolous matters which, if true, entitle him to the requested equitable relief.
We think the district court should either offer the petitioner counsel to assist him in amending his petition or afford him an opportunity to particularize his allegations. The court may then consider whether the petition sufficiently supports its general allegations of non-frivolous matters to justify an evidential hearing.
Vacated and remanded.