Legal Opinion
ACOSTA v. SUPERINTENDENT SCI FOREST
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 7, 2024No. 5:20-cv-01305-JFMUnknown
1Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAIME ACOSTA : CIVIL ACTION : v. : NO. 20-1305 : SUPERINTENDENT SCI FOREST, : THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE : COUNTY OF BERKS, THE : ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE : STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA : MEMORANDUM MURPHY, J. February 7, 2024 Over two years after the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Jaime Acosta has moved for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). We deny his motion for several reasons. First, Mr. Acosta’s primary argument about the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel is the same argument…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Slack v. McDanielSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Martinez v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Gonzalez v. CrosbySupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Rainey v. VarnerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.