Grueninger v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 6/27/14. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ERIC ADAM GRUENINGER, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:13CV260 DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Eric Adam Grueninger, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition") challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court of the County of Hanover, Virginia ("Circuit Court"). In his § 2254 Petition,1 Grueninger argues entitlement to relief based upon the following grounds: Claim One: "5th and 14th Amendment Violations[.] custodial interrogation" (§ 2254 Pet. 16.) Counsel not present during Claim Two: Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by: (a) failing to move to suppress Grueninger's statement; (b) failing to properly cross-examine a witness; (c) failing to request a mental health evaluation of Grueninger prior to sentencing; (d) failing to move for a reduction in sentence; (e) failing to file an appeal; (f) failing to argue that his wife "was behind the allegations against me" (id. at 25); (g) improperly stating that he filed a discovery motion. 1 The Court employs the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system for Grueninger's § 2254 Petition and attachments. quotations from Grueninger's submissions. The Court corrects the capitalization in The Court notes that the majority of Grueninger's claims derive from an outline entitled "THE MOST COMMON PITFALLS ATTORNEYS MAKE IN DEFENDING CHILD ABUSE CASES." (§ 2254 Pet. Ex. 4). As explained more thoroughly below, Grueninger's vague and conclusory attempts to construct claims against counsel based on this outline wholly fail.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?