United States District Court, D. Minnesota
CHAUN D. CARRIDINE, Petitioner,
DAVID RICHOUS, Respondent.
D. Carridine, No. 229283, pro se.
Kay Jenny, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, HENNEPIN
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER AND
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE
Chaun Carridine filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as well as a motion to compel
discovery, seeking relief from his life sentence for
first-degree premeditated murder. United States Magistrate
Judge Franklin L. Noel issued an Order and Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) dismissing
Carridine's motion to compel discovery, recommending that
the Court deny Carridine's application for habeas corpus
relief, and recommending that the Court dismiss
Carridine's action with prejudice. Carridine now objects
to the Magistrate Judge's Order and R&R. Because the
state court's denial of Carridine's claims was
neither contrary to clearly established federal law as
determined by the United States Supreme Court, nor based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts, the Court will
affirm and adopt the Magistrate Judge's Order and
R&R, deny Carridine's petition for writ of habeas
corpus, and dismiss this case with prejudice.
shot Lorenzo Guffie outside of Palmer's Bar in
Minneapolis on the night of June 3, 2007. State v.
Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130');">812 N.W.2d 130, 134 (Minn. 2012). As a result
of the shooting, Guffie died the following morning at
Hennepin County Medical Center. Id.
trial, the State's witnesses testified that Carridine and
Guffie got into an argument, but no physical confrontation,
at Palmer's Bar. Id. One of Guffie's
associates testified that he heard Carridine ask Guffie,
“[w]hy you rob me?” and heard Guffie tell
Carridine to “[s]top saying I robbed you.”
Id. Upon leaving the bar, Guffie again got into a
similar argument with Carridine near the parking lot.
Id. at 134-135. Guffie then got into his car with
his associates and was driving forward when Carridine walked
up to the car and shot Guffie. Id. at 135.
testimony at trial conflicted with the State's witnesses.
Id. Carridine testified that he recognized and tried
to avoid Guffie and his associates at Palmer's Bar, but
that Guffie approached Carridine and asked,
“[w]hat's this shit I hear about you telling people
that I'm a thief and I stick people up and I rob people,
” to which Carridine responded that he did not want any
problems with Guffie. Id. Carridine testified Guffie
or one his associates then hit Carridine on the back of the
head, but that their fight was soon broken up. Id.
Once Carridine left the bar and was in the parking lot,
Guffie allegedly hit Carridine with his car and then pulled
out his gun. Id. at 136. Carridine testified he had
no choice but to shoot at Guffie's car until he drove
away, but that he did not intend to hit anyone. Id.
court jury found Carridine guilty of first-degree
premeditated murder, and Carridine was sentenced to life in
prison. Id. at 134. Upon Carridine's direct
appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed Carridine's
conviction on May 9, 2012. Id. Carridine then filed
a petition for postconviction relief, asserting error in the
admission of impeachment evidence, prosecutorial misconduct,
ineffective assistance of counsel, and newly discovered
evidence. Carridine v. State, 867 N.W.2d 488, 492-93
(Minn. 2015). Carridine was summarily denied postconviction
relief on all claims except for the claim based on newly
discovered evidence, which was ultimately denied after an
evidentiary hearing. Id. at 491. The Minnesota
Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief on
July 29, 2015. Id.
filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 on November 19, 2015. (Pet. for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Habeas Pet.”), Nov. 19, 2015,
Docket No. 1.) In his petition, Carridine asserted nine
grounds for relief which fall under four categories: (1)
ineffective assistance of appellate and trial counsel; (2)
prosecutorial misconduct; (3) invalid grand jury indictment;
(4) and abuse of discretion of the state courts. Richous
responded that all of Carridine's claims have either been
addressed or found to be procedurally barred by the Minnesota
Supreme Court. Carridine then filed an amended motion to
compel discovery for various materials in order to expand the
record, including crime scene reports and images, certified
copies of the State's witnesses' criminal
backgrounds, autopsy reports, crime lab reports, and police
reports. (Pet'r's Mot. for Disc. at 1, Apr. 14, 2016,
Docket No. 15; Am. Mot. for Disc. at 1-2, May 10, 2016,
Docket No. 20.)
6, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order and R&R
which dismissed Carridine's motion to compel discovery,
recommended denying the habeas petition, and recommended
dismissing Carridine's case with prejudice. (Order and
R&R at 13, July 6, 2016, Docket No. 28.) Carridine timely
filed objections to the Order and R&R on July 25, 2016.
(Objs., July 25, 2016, Docket No. 29.) Carridine appears to
object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that relief
was not available based on ineffective assistance of
appellate and trial counsel. (Id. at 1-5.) Carridine
also objects to the Magistrate Judge's denial of his
amended motion to compel discovery. (Id. at 4.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
may file “specific written objections” to a
Magistrate Judge's R&R. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72;
accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). The party should
specify the portion of the R&R to which he or she
objects, and describe the basis for the objections. Mayer
v. Walvatne, No. 07-1958, 2008 WL 4527774, at *2 (D.
Minn. Sept. 28, 2008).
non-dispositive motions, the Court will “modify or set
aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The Court reviews
de novo any portion of an R&R “that has
been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3);
accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Objections which are
not specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and
considered by a Magistrate Judge are not entitled to de
novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error.
See Martinez v. Astrue, No. 10-5863, 2011 WL
4974445, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2011) (citing cases from
numerous other jurisdictions); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory
committee's note, subd. ...