Brief filed: 07/26/2024
Documents
Rivers v. Lumpkin
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 23-1345
Argument(s)
Given the costs incurred by both the government and petitioners, this Court should define the term second or successive to exclude habeas applications that are filedwhile a petitioner’s initial petitionis pending in either the district court or on appeal. Habeas petitioners, who are oftenpoorly educated and proceeding pro se, lack the expertise andresources necessary to uncoverlegal and factual support for aclaim of actual or legal innocence. This Court should thereforeoverrule the Fifth Circuit and adopt the holdings of the Second and Third Circuits in order to give them a greater opportunity to bring viable claims challenging their convictions and sentences.
Author(s)
David M. Porter, NACDL, Washington, DC; Rachel Julagay and David F. Ness, Federal Defenders Of Montana, Great Falls, MT; Colin Stephens, MT Innocence Project, Missoula, MT; Rene L. Valladares, Jonathan M. Kirshbaum, and Jeremy C. Baron, Federal Public Defender District of Nevada
