■ authorities despite knowing that charges against Crain would be dismissed. Although Whitehead failed to allege prejudice with any specificity, he did allege that Strickland governed his claim. Six days after Whitehead filed his § 2255 motion, the district court summarily dismissed it. Habeas applications filed by pro se prisoners are entitled to liberal construction, and pleading errors do not bar consideration of the claims of pro se habeas applicants. Guidroz v. Lynaugh, 852 F.2d 832, 834 (5th Cir.1988); see also Haines v. Ker-ner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Furthermore, “Strickland requires that prejudice be proved, not pleaded.” Petty v. McCotter, 779 F.2d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1986); United States v. Martinez, 181 F.3d 627, 628-29 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). We VACATE and REMAND so that Whitehead can
holding that defendants statements i dont know and later theres no hurry in response to officers question about whether defendant wanted to call his attorney did not indicate that he was seeking counsel at that time holding that the defendants conclusory assertion that he told his counsel he wanted to testify but that counsel failed to call him as witness was insufficient to require a hearing or a response from government but the defendant should have been allowed an opportunity to state his claim with greater specificity holding that defendants prior arrests were insufficient to establish that defendant was aware of his right to appointed counsel even though he told dea officers that he understood his rights holding that the movants assertion that he failed to advise the plea court of counsels alleged deficiencies because he blamed himself for his lack of funds was undermined by the fact that the plea court advised the movant that he had the right to appointed counsel if he could not afford to pay for counsel holding that the defendants prior conviction was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel because he had the opportunity for appointed counsel at public expense