No. 21-5277

Samuel Eaddy v. Pennsylvania

Lower Court: Pennsylvania
Docketed: 2021-08-03
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-challenge disabilities due-process effective-counsel jurisdictional-time-limits mental-health mental-health-disability post-conviction-relief procedural-requirements
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Are the jurisdictional time limits imposed by Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act unconstitutional as applied to individuals with severe brain abnormalities and mental health issues?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Question Presented Individuals are guaranteed the right to effective counsel at trial. These rights mean nothing if attorneys are not held to task as to their stewardship of cases. In Pennsylvania, the first time individuals can challenge the effectiveness of their trial attorney is at the post-conviction stage. The Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act creates temporal and procedural requirements in order to obtain relief. The current requirements offer very little, if any, relief to individuals who fail to comply with deadlines due to their disabilities. Are the jurisdictional time limits imposed by Pennsylvania’s Post-Conviction Relief Act unconstitutional as applied to individuals with severe brain abnormalities and mental health issues? 1

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-17
Waiver of right of respondent Pennsylvania to respond filed.
2021-07-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 2, 2021)

Attorneys

Pennsylvania
Nancy WinkelmanDistrict Attorney's Office, Respondent
Nancy WinkelmanDistrict Attorney's Office, Respondent
Samuel Eaddy
Thomas Patrick FerrantLaw Office of Thomas P. Ferrant, Petitioner
Thomas Patrick FerrantLaw Office of Thomas P. Ferrant, Petitioner