Fifth Circuit· 11/12/2002

Cousin v. Lensing

Citations

310 F.3d 843
34 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 37
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23381
2002 WL 31414494

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

observing that the prison mailbox rule does not extend to prisoners who are represented by counsel or to submissions filed on a prisoner’s behalf by a “non-attorney intermediary”
finding “mere attorney error or neglect is not an extraordinary circumstance such that equitable tolling is justified.”
mere attorney error or neglect is not an extraordinary circumstance such that equitable tolling is justified
petitioner’s guilty pleas became final at the end of the period for filing a notice of appeal under La. Code Crim. P. art. 914
“[P]risoners are not entitled to counsel during habeas proceedings and thus cannot state a claim for ineffective assistance during those proceedings.”
petitioner’s guilty pleas became final at the end of the period for filing a notice of appeal under La. Code Crim. P. art. 914

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Higginbotham, Smith, Clement

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

31 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Cousin v. Lensing

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.