Grueninger v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, No. 3:2013cv00260 - Document 18 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 6/27/14. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
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.
]]>
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.
