Case Citator › Hebbe v. Pliler

Hebbe v. Pliler

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
627 F.3d 338
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
121 of 121
Citing cases (total)
4,045
Treatment dates
2022–2023
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Hebbe v. Pliler is limited among the reviewed cases: all 121 flagged citations have been read, with the 2 confirmed limitations listed below. Thompson v. Gomez declined to extend Hebbe's pro-se leniency rule to unauthorized surreplies filed without good cause; its findings and recommendations were adopted on April 20, 2022.
More on how this was screened

James Huffman v. Amy Lindgren later excluded practicing attorneys representing themselves from the liberal pleading standard; Jason v. Adobe, Inc. recognized that binding exception while citing Hebbe's usual rule. The other reviewed opinions applied Hebbe positively, used it as the standard of review, held that liberal construction could not substitute for plausible factual allegations, or directed nearby adverse-history language at other authorities.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

4,045 later cases cite Hebbe v. Pliler; 121 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Hebbe v. Pliler?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Eastern District of California declined to extend Hebbe's pro-se leniency rule to unauthorized surreplies filed without leave, requiring a showing of good cause.

    (PC) Thompson v. Gomez · E.D. Cal. · filed

    Nonetheless, the leniency afforded pro se inmates need not extend to permitting surreplies “as a matter of course,” and the Court is not inclined to grant such leave absent a showing of good cause.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ninth Circuit declined to extend the liberal pleading standard reflected in Hebbe to practicing attorneys representing themselves.

    James Huffman v. Amy Lindgren · Ninth Circuit · filed

    We join this chorus. There is a good reason that we afford leeway to pro se parties, who appear without counsel and without the benefit of sophisticated representation: “Presumably unskilled in the law, the pro se litigant is far more prone to making errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the representation of counsel.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (citation omitted). That logic does not apply to practicing attorneys, nor should the grace extend to them.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hebbe v. Pliler and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace