GINGERICH v. TICE et al, No. 1:2019cv00163 - Document 19 (W.D. Pa. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER re 10 First MOTION to Dismiss re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CRAWFORD COUNTY. Respondent's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 10] is GRANTED. Because Petitioner did not file his § 2254 petition within the one-year AEDP A limitations period and no tolling or other exceptions apply, his petition is dismissed with prejudice, and no certificate of appealability should issue. The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 5/21/2020. (dm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
GINGERICH v. TICE et al Doc. 19 Case 1:19-cv-00163-RAL Document 19 Filed 05/21/20 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ALBERT GINGERICH, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner v. ERIC TICE, Respondent Case No. l:19-cv-163 Erie RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE OPINION AND ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF No. 10] I. Introduction Petitioner Albert Gingerich, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset (SCI-Somerset), initiated this action on June 3, 2019, by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). ECF No. 1. Petitioner is Ghallenging the judgment of sentenced imposed upon him by the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County on November 6, 2015, at CP-20-CR-0000164-2015. ECF No. 10-6. Petitioner raises the following four grounds for relief: 1. Ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) based on trial counsel's failure to conduct an adequate pre-trial investigation; 2. IAC based on trial counsel's failure to present evidence of Petitioner's mental retardation at sentencing; 3. Petitioner's guilty plea was coerced by Mennonite church authorities; and 4. IAC based on trial counsel's failure to conduct an adequate pre-trial investigation. 1 Id. 1 Grounds one and four appear to be substantively identical. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-00163-RAL Document 19 Filed 05/21/20 Page 2 of 5 Case 1:19-cv-00163-RAL Document 19 Filed 05/21/20 Page 3 of 5 Case 1:19-cv-00163-RAL Document 19 Filed 05/21/20 Page 4 of 5 Case 1:19-cv-00163-RAL Document 19 Filed 05/21/20 Page 5 of 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
