News

For any lawyer, winning a case feels great. But it’s even better when the outcome has a broader impact on the legal system.

Student-attorneys in Duke Law’s Appellate Litigation Clinic did just that when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled their way in two cases involving violations of their clients’ constitutional rights. In both cases, the students won rulings that will make life a little easier for people trying to navigate the justice system. 

In one case, the ruling not only allows the clinic’s client to continue his own lawsuit but will give more leniency to people representing themselves when they file court documents that contain mistakes or otherwise run afoul of procedural rules.

“It's a huge deal for pro se litigants, particularly ones who are incarcerated,” said Clinic Director Richard Katskee. “If you're not a lawyer, mistakes get made. It’s important that the court recognized a duty to give people a little more leniency when filing, to improve access to justice and not shut them out for narrow, technical reasons.”

The clinic was appointed to represent Patrick Nichols after a lower court dismissed his civil rights complaint against two police officers because it didn’t comply with procedural rules. Nichols, who was incarcerated and did not have a lawyer, had filed a complaint alleging he suffered a broken arm and other injuries when the officers threw him to the ground during a 2022 arrest. But the complaint listed only one officer by name, though Nichols noted that “another officer” had put his knee on [Nichols’] throat. That mistake — and the lack of detail about the circumstances of his arrest — resulted in a dismissal. An amended complaint was also dismissed. 

Nichols’ appeal was assigned to Emma Cline JD ’26, Molly Pines JD ’26, and Christian Ross JD ’26, one of two three-member teams that comprise the clinic’s annual enrollment. Appeals work is intensive; each student puts in an average of 525 pro bono hours over two semesters researching, strategizing, and preparing their case for hearing. 

Ross, who presented the oral argument at the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, told the three-judge panel that the district court should have recognized that Nichols meant to sue two officers and corrected his errors. 

“Because he was proceeding pro se, this court applies a liberal construction to his pleadings,” Ross argued. “And that liberal construction means that he should have been afforded more generosity and more leniency with following procedural requirements and to look at the substance of his arguments to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. … At the very least, Mr. Nichols should have the opportunity to amend his complaint in the district court.”

In its ruling, the judges agreed, concluding that Nichols’ intent was clear and said the district court “must help remedy the error.”

“[T]his Court has long held that “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” the three-judge panel wrote. The court also ruled favorably on the substantive issue — that Nichols had presented enough information to suppport a claim of excessive force. In a footnote, the court commended Ross for his “excellent oral advocacy.” 

Ross said he was pleased for the client, adding, “I’m equally pleased that we helped make new precedent in the Fourth Circuit that will better enable future pro se plaintiffs to have their civil rights claims heard.”

Pines credited clinic classmates Benedict Luongo JD ’26, Katherine Mayer JD ’26, and Dylan Palmer JD ’26 with providing assistance, along with clinic alumni who helped the team moot for the case. 

“Getting to research, draft, and file two briefs in the Fourth Circuit and see the case play out before graduation was so rewarding,” Cline added. “Working on Mr. Nichols’s case has been the highlight of my time at Duke Law.”

Ruling could change prison policy on helping inmates with disabilities

In the second case, a physically impaired man can continue his lawsuit against South Carolina prison officials alleging they violated his Eighth Amendment right to humane conditions of confinement. 

After being sentenced to 12 years in prison for second-degree burglary, Theodore Bolick was sent to a state facility for a period of risk assessment, during which prisoners aren't allowed out of their cells for exercise. Bolick, who has metal rods in his legs, said he couldn’t exercise in his cell and suffered both physically and mentally during his ten months there. Prison officials repeatedly ignored his requests for relief, and for part of the time he was housed in an overcrowded cell, he alleged.

A district court dismissed Bolick’s complaint for failing to establish his case and found the prison officials to be entitled to qualified immunity. Bolick’s appeal was assigned to the clinic, where he was represented by student-attorneys Michael DeLuca JD ’25, Gabriela Nagle Alverio JD ’25, and Zoe Terner Rosen JD ’25. 

Rosen, who was selected to deliver the oral argument, told Fourth Circuit judges that the prison facility didn’t articulate any “exceptional circumstances” that would merit depriving Bolick of out-of-cell exercise, and said prison officials failed to accommodate his disability by providing any meaningful alternative.

“They didn't have a specific justification about him that made out-of-cell exercise impossible,” she said. “This Court has never held that that kind of generalized safety justification is sufficient for depriving inmates of out-of-cell exercise. They need something specific, something about Mr. Bolick, something so weighty that it could not be addressed in any other way but to deprive Mr. Bolick and other inmates of out-of-cell exercise. They haven't even tried to do that here.”

In its decision, the appellate court vacated the lower court’s summary judgment, allowing Bolick to pursue his civil claim. Rosen was also commended for her oral advocacy.

“It helps a lot of people,” Katskee said of the ruling. “Not only does Mr. Bolick get to go forward with his case, but it’s a strong message to all the prisons in the Fourth Circuit that they have to treat people with more respect and address their physical needs.”

The Fourth Circuit includes the Carolinas, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. The pair of wins cap another strong year for the clinic, which Katskee has led since 2023.

“Seeing the spectacular work that the students are capable of is jaw-dropping,” he said. “Their determination to serve the clients, to help people, and to take seriously the pursuit of justice and reform of the system is just incredible.”