Legal Opinion
Hinton v. Rudasill
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided June 12, 2009No. Civil Action 08-1073 (RWR)PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RICHARD W. ROBERTS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Kenneth A. Hinton, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis at the time, 1 filed this pro se complaint based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting legal malpractice and other common law claims against his former defense counsel James A. Rudasill. Rudasill has moved to dismiss the complaint. Because Hinton’s claims are either barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel or do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the complaint will be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Rudasill was Hinton’s court-appointed defense counsel…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Polk County v. DodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Hinton v. Trans Union, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2009
- Singh v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- United States v. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
- Lewis v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Hinton v. RudasillCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2010
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.