Legal Opinion
Rutledge v. United States
District Court, D. South Dakota
Decided January 18, 2024No. 3:23-cv-03018Unknown
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION JAMES P. RUTLEDGE, 3:23-CV-03018-RAL Movant, ORDER DENYING MOVANT’S MOTION VS. TO APPOINT COUNSEL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Movant James P. Rutledge, filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 1. Rutledge has also filed a motion to appoint counsel through a letter sent to the undersigned. Doc. 15. Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to counsel for a collateral attack on their sentence. Pennsylvania v. Finley,
481 U.S. 551, 555
(1987); see also United States v.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pennsylvania v. FinleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Michael Hoggard v. James Purkett, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. Michael Lloyd CraycraftCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
- John Ameen Abdullah v. Larry Norris, Acting Director, Arkansas Department of CorrectionCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. ArcorenDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 2009