Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carridine v. Richous

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 29, 2016

DAVID RICHOUS, Respondent.

          Chaun D. Carridine, No. 229283, pro se.

          Linda Kay Jenny, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for respondent.



         Petitioner 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.


         Carridine 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.

         At 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.

         Carridine's 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.

         A state 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.

         Carridine 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.)[2]

         On July 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.)



         A party 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).

         For 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. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.