Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Page: 1 of 4
Case: 14-10789
Page: 2 of 4
Case: 14-10789
Page: 3 of 4
access to courts is cognizable under 1983. Martin v. Wainwright, 526 F.2d 938,
939 (5th Cir. 1976).
Federal courts have an obligation to look behind the label of a [pleading]
filed by a pro se inmate and determine whether [it] is, in effect, cognizable under a
different remedial statutory framework. See Gooden v. United States, 627 F.3d
846, 847 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Supreme
Court has noted that the purpose for looking beyond the label a pro se litigant
attaches to a [pleading] is to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, to avoid
inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, or to create a
better correspondence between the substance of a pro se [pleading]s claim and its
underlying legal basis. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82, 124 S. Ct.
786, 791-92, 157 L. Ed. 2d 778 (2003) (citations omitted). We liberally construe
pro se briefs. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
Upon review of the record and the parties briefs, we vacate and remand for
further proceedings.
As an initial matter, on appeal, Cruitt persists in asserting his claims should
proceed pursuant to the All Writs Act and 2254; however, we construe a pro se
litigants briefs liberally. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. We must look beyond the
label a pro se litigant attached to his [pleading], and while Cruitt insists that his
claims are properly brought as a habeas action, he discusses the right of state
3
Case: 14-10789
Page: 4 of 4