Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Louis Osei Cotton v. Michael Redmon, 951 F.2d 1258, 10th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court to dismiss an inmate's §1983 claim that his appointed attorney provided inadequate representation in his murder trial. The appellate court determined that oral arguments would not assist in determining the appeal. The inmate claimed his constitutional rights were violated by the ineffective assistance, but the district court found the allegations insufficient to proceed under §1983. The appellate court agreed with the district court's reasoning for dismissing the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1991-12-20 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 951 F.2d 1258 Docket: 91-3201

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court to dismiss an inmate's §1983 claim that his appointed attorney provided inadequate representation in his murder trial. The appellate court determined that oral arguments would not assist in determining the appeal. The inmate claimed his constitutional rights were violated by the ineffective assistance, but the district court found the allegations insufficient to proceed under §1983. The appellate court agreed with the district court's reasoning for dismissing the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views2 pages

    Louis Osei Cotton v. Michael Redmon, 951 F.2d 1258, 10th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court to dismiss an inmate's §1983 claim that his appointed attorney provided inadequate representation in his murder trial. The appellate court determined that oral arguments would not assist in determining the appeal. The inmate claimed his constitutional rights were violated by the ineffective assistance, but the district court found the allegations insufficient to proceed under §1983. The appellate court agreed with the district court's reasoning for dismissing the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    951 F.

    2d 1258
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    Louis Osei COTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    Michael REDMON, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 91-3201.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    Dec. 20, 1991.

    Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR and EBEL, Circuit Judges.


    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    McKAY, Chief Judge.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
    of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument. We grant appellant's motion to
    proceed in forma pauperis and proceed to consider the merits of the appeal.

    Plaintiff, an inmate at the Lansing Correctional Facility in Lansing, Kansas,


    brought suit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff claimed
    that the attorney appointed to defend him against a murder charge provided
    inadequate representation, thereby depriving him of a fundamental
    constitutional right. After considering plaintiff's allegations, the district court
    found that plaintiff's claims were insufficient to proceed under 42 U.S.C.
    1983 and dismissed the action. Plaintiff appeals that decision to this court.

    After a thorough review of the record and the pleadings, we AFFIRM the

    decision of the district court for substantially the reasons set forth in the district
    court order dated May 16, 1991.
    4

    The mandate shall issue forthwith.

    This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
    used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing
    the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th
    Cir.R. 36.3

    You might also like