No. 20-6062
Montgomery Carl Akers v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-jurisdiction civil-procedure criminal-process district-court due-process legal-counsel post-conviction-proceedings right-to-counsel standing subject-matter-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-11-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED THE APPELLATE COURT MUST FIRST CONSIDER WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT . HAS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION; and, SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION MAY BE RAISED AT ANY TIME; and, OBJECTIONS TO SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION ARE THE CHIEF COMPONENT ‘ OF THE SUPREME COURT IN DETERMINING THE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE AND DISTRICT COURTS; THE PETITIONER HAS A RIGHT TO HIRE COUNSEL AT HIS OWN EXPENSE ON POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS OR AT ANY TIME IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS.
Docket Entries
2020-11-16
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. Justice Kagan and Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
2020-10-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020.
2020-10-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-08-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 16, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent