United States District Court, D. Minnesota
N. ERICKSEN United States District Judge
found Petitioner guilty of second-degree intentional murder.
See Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1 (2014)
(amended 2015). He was sentenced to 391 months'
imprisonment. Petitioner appealed, and the Minnesota Court of
Appeals affirmed. State v. Abdillahi (Abdillahi
I), No. A09-2011, 2011 WL 691623 (Minn.Ct.App. Mar. 1,
2011), rev. denied (Minn. May 7, 2011). Petitioner
has since filed four petitions for postconviction relief in
state court. Each has been denied. The Minnesota Court of
Appeals affirmed the denials of the first three.
Abdillahi v. State (Abdillahi IV), No.
A16-0179, 2016 WL 4069294 (Minn.Ct.App. Aug. 1, 2016),
rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 2016); Abdillahi v.
State (Abdillahi III), No. A14-1795, 2015 WL
4877721 (Minn.Ct.App. Aug. 17, 2015), rev. denied
(Minn. Sept. 29, 2015); Abdillahi v. State
(Abdillahi II), No. A12-1477, 2013 WL 2924900
(Minn.Ct.App. June 17, 2013), rev. denied (Minn.
Aug. 20, 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 1329 (2014).
Petitioner's appeal of the denial of his fourth petition
for postconviction relief is currently before the Minnesota
Court of Appeals.
his appeal of the denial of his third petition for
postconviction relief was pending before the Minnesota Court
of Appeals, Petitioner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2012) in this Court. He also filed several
motions. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. In a Report
and Recommendation dated June 29, 2017, the Honorable Hildy
Bowbeer, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that
Petitioner's “Motion to Access and for Complete
Disclosure of State Witness [A.I.'s] Suppressed November
6, 2008 Material Pretrial Interview Statements” be
denied; that Petitioner's “Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing; Compulsory Process; & Admission of Hearsay
Evidence” be denied; that Petitioner's Motion for
Appointment of Counsel be denied; that Petitioner's
Motion-Application for Stay and Abeyance Procedure be denied;
that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be granted in part
and denied in part; that this action be dismissed with
prejudice; and that no certificate of appealability be
issued. Petitioner filed objections. Respondent did not respond.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record.
See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Based on that review, the
Court accepts the recommended disposition subject to the
eight, nine, and ten
grounds eight, nine, and ten of his § 2254 petition,
Petitioner asserted claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. The Report and Recommendation stated that the claims
were raised in a pro se supplemental brief on direct appeal,
that the Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected them, and that
the claims failed to satisfy the standard imposed by §
2254(d)(1). Petitioner objected, asserting that the state
courts did not address the merits of these claims and that
the Report and Recommendation erroneously applied §
2254(d) to them. Even if § 2254(d) does not apply and
the claims are subject to de novo review, see Berghuis v.
Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 390 (2010); cf. Abdillahi
IV, 2016 WL 4069294, at *2; Abdillahi III, 2015
WL 4877721, at *5, the claims fail for the reasons set forth
in the Report and Recommendation.
to Petitioner, the Report and Recommendation mischaracterized
the claim asserted in ground twelve of his § 2254
petition and addressed “an entirely different claim
than that raised by” him. In ground twelve, Petitioner
asserted that his appellate counsel's “materially
limited representation precluding postconviction proceedings
created a conflict of interest that impeded Petitioner's
ability to stay the direct appeal in order to pursue
postconviction proceedings first.” In his first
postconviction petition, the state court rejected this claim:
“The Court finds [appellate counsel's] testimony
credible, and finds that the scope of his representation of
Petitioner did not give rise to a conflict of
interest.” The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed:
[Petitioner] also argues that [appellate counsel] did not
adequately seek a stay of the appeal and remand to the
district court for an evidentiary hearing on whether
[Petitioner's] trial counsel was ineffective. [Appellate
counsel's] certificate of representation expressly
limited his representation to the appeal before this court
and [Petitioner] cannot show he was prejudiced by [appellate
counsel's] alleged disinterest in seeking a stay of
appellate proceedings, as no less than three unsuccessful
motions for a stay were filed with this court.
. . . .
[Petitioner] has the burden of proving facts supporting
relief, but the evidence in support of his claims is minimal
and the district court explicitly found [appellate
counsel's] testimony credible. On this record,
substantial evidence supports the district court's
findings that a conflict of interest did not affect
[appellate counsel's] representation.
Abdillahi II, 2013 WL 2924900, at *6.
has not demonstrated that the state court's resolution of
his claim resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Nor
has he demonstrated that the state court's resolution of
his claim resulted in a decision that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented to the state court. See Id.
on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the