David Lee Smith v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
ib PKQ-SE. permPMCA. eaititlek Ta this c-ounrk eecx —
c>i Aia
ft tAlR.IT
Fftm TD h&dLARE Al.d. S.SQF ENTIRE. ArtATTER. iM £aMT£OVSGSV B'/XSSCtlMe
ap A/LAMLJS C-ALISIMfi Al.d. £LK/EA/L1R mV A.CaEP. m-7' I UkUiaMSTxmrxaAiAL {
I.S PRO-SE PETITIQA/E& ALSO. EL M TXT ILA TO REPEAL
QF Al.d. fi~ST IH—7. I fAML hlSSQLUTIOAi
PE.TITIOA/ER. EMTITLEL TO AhhXTXdAIAL.XS PRD-SE
relief iaithls kiait lip a /laa A£Js,ll/)l/sia/s wjs
E.USTQMAAI M'/AAI K. /AIEL.LS TO XKAAAEhxATEL'j RELEASE.
HlAA IM IT H a LIT ELEWhXTXUMS?
IS PRa-SE PETITIOA/ER EAITITLEX LXBERALL COHSJkUtl-
TIQAI QF HXS CLOMPLKZKlTf
IT UklLhlAlFPL FDR. STATE flOVE/U/lEAlTS TO ASSEMBLE
ERIAftlAWLSmTUSES lAira ERXAHSMAL STATUTE to eaihaajee
OFFEA/LER. SBAITEATEESf
is Prq-se PexiTiOAief^ eaititied to eouht ^1 LXBEML
TO hXSTRl-CLT CLOLiUTtlAlXTH XMSTRUdTSOMS TO hECLARE KUd.&^, IH-T.l UklUOklSTJTO fj;GA//$L AUh DkhER REhLidTXOM C2F HXS
C3.} C.QMSEdUTX\I E- 1&8 AAOAlTHS flklH Hl( AflONTHS SEMTEAldS T£2
tX\ dQMSEdUTXVE D.0 MOUTHS TO X£ A/iOMThiSTlAAESEAxVEh
AMk QK&Efc HXS dUST/HAldAl RkHAM lAlBLS TdRELEASE
HIM lAfXTtf OUT aaMhXTXOMS YIS
Is pro-se petitioner entitled to court's liberal construction of his complaint?