Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers, 791 F.2d 1182 (1986) p242.
Subject:
properly written complaint
Facts:
P claimed damages arising from the suicide of the son while he was a pretrial detainee in a municipal jail.
Procedure:
District court dismissed the complaint for failure to state claim. The court of appeals first reversed, then withdrew its opinion and then submitted another. It upheld the dismissal with respect to one police officer but otherwise reversed the dismissal.
Issue:
Was the complaint sufficiently worded such that P can make a case?
Rule:
As long as it does not appear without a doubt that the P can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief, the compliant is sufficient.
Holding:
Yes.
Rationale:
It does not appear without a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. The complaint alleged that D had deliberately adopted a policy that constituted indifference to the medical needs of detained persons.
Policy/Notes:
This rule and holding were based on the outcome in Conley v. Gibson.