1
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007)
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WILLIAM ERICKSON v. BARRY J. PARDUS ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06–7317. Decided June 4, 2007
PER CURIAM.
Imprisoned by the State of Colorado and alleging viola-
tions of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment protec-
tions against cruel and unusual punishment, William
Erickson, the petitioner in this Court, filed suit against
prison officials in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado. He alleged that a liver condition
resulting from hepatitis C required a treatment program
that officials had commenced but then wrongfully termi-
nated, with life-threatening consequences. Deeming these
allegations, and others to be noted, to be “conclusory,” the
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the Dis-
trict Court’s dismissal of petitioner’s complaint. 198 Fed.
Appx. 694, 698 (2006). The holding departs in so stark a
manner from the pleading standard mandated by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that we grant review.
We vacate the court’s judgment and remand the case for
further consideration.
Petitioner was incarcerated in the Limon Correctional
Facility in Limon, Colorado, where respondents Barry
Pardus and Dr. Anita Bloor were working as prison offi-
cials. After Dr. Bloor removed petitioner from the hepati-
tis C treatment he had been receiving, petitioner sued
under 42 U. S. C. §1983, complaining, inter alia, that Dr.
Bloor had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by dem-
onstrating deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. See, e.g., Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 104–105
(1976) (“[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs
of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton
2
ERICKSON v. PARDUS
Per Curiam
infliction of pain . . . proscribed by the Eighth Amend-
ment,” and this includes “indifference . . . manifested by
prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or