Pro Se Litigation
Representing yourself in court — what it means, what courts expect, and the 'liberal construction' that helps less than you'd think.
What It Is
Pro se (Latin: “for oneself”) means representing yourself in a legal proceeding without an attorney. In § 1983 cases, the vast majority of plaintiffs are pro se — either because they can’t find an attorney willing to take the case or can’t afford one.
Liberal Construction
Courts are required to construe pro se filings “liberally” — reading them with more leniency than filings by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
This means:
- Your complaint doesn’t need perfect legal terminology
- Courts should look past formatting and procedural errors to the substance of your claims
- A pro se complaint shouldn’t be dismissed unless it’s clear the claims are legally insufficient
What Liberal Construction Doesn’t Mean
- It doesn’t excuse you from following rules of procedure
- It doesn’t lower the plausibility pleading standard
- It doesn’t mean the court will make arguments for you
- It doesn’t exempt you from discovery obligations or deadlines
- It doesn’t prevent sanctions for frivolous filings
The reality: courts say “liberal construction” but still hold pro se litigants to the same substantive standards as attorneys. You get some slack on form, almost none on substance.
What Courts Actually Expect
- Follow the rules — Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, local rules, and the judge’s individual practices. Read them.
- Meet deadlines — No extensions just because you’re pro se
- Be professional — Emotional outbursts, personal attacks on opposing counsel, or conspiracy theories in your filings will hurt your credibility
- Organize your filings — Numbered paragraphs, clear headings, page numbers, proper caption
- Serve opposing counsel — Everything you file with the court must also be sent to the other side
The Hard Truth
Pro se litigants lose the vast majority of § 1983 cases. Not because their claims lack merit, but because:
- Qualified immunity is designed to end cases early
- Iqbal/Twombly demands sophisticated pleading
- Discovery requires knowing what to ask for and how
- Summary judgment briefing is essentially lawyer work
This site exists to help close that gap. But go in with clear eyes: you are fighting an uphill battle, and the system was not designed for you to succeed.
Key Cases
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) — Liberal construction of pro se filings
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) — Pro se complaints held to less stringent standards