context: The court of appeals for this circuit has an established tradition of leniency towards pro se petitioners, especially where summary judgment is sought by the government.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: "due to the pro se petitioner's general lack of expertise, courts should review habeas petitions with a lenient eye, allowing borderline cases to proceed.... pro se complaints must be liberally constructed"
citation_a.sentence: See Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir.1983) (“due to the pro se petitioner’s general lack of expertise, courts should review habeas petitions with a lenient eye, allowing borderline cases to proceed.... pro se complaints must be liberally constructed”); see also United States v. Gonzalez-Roque, 165 F.Supp.2d 577 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (holding that pro se petitioners need not raise issues “in INS terms” but may raise them “as they may have understood” them).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that pro se petitioners need not raise issues "in INS terms" but may raise them "as they may have understood" them
citation_b.sentence: See Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir.1983) (“due to the pro se petitioner’s general lack of expertise, courts should review habeas petitions with a lenient eye, allowing borderline cases to proceed.... pro se complaints must be liberally constructed”); see also United States v. Gonzalez-Roque, 165 F.Supp.2d 577 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (holding that pro se petitioners need not raise issues “in INS terms” but may raise them “as they may have understood” them).