Boss v. Ludwick

Document Cited authorities (45) Cited in (3) Precedent Map Related
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
Writing for the CourtMARK W. BENNETT
CitationBoss v. Ludwick, 943 F.Supp.2d 917 (N.D. Iowa 2013)
Decision Date03 May 2013
Docket NumberNo. C 11–4014–MWB.,C 11–4014–MWB.
PartiesDonald L. BOSS, Jr., Petitioner, v. Nick LUDWICK, Respondent.

943 F.Supp.2d 917

Donald L. BOSS, Jr., Petitioner,

v.Nick LUDWICK, Respondent.

No. C 11–4014–MWB.

United States District Court,

N.D. Iowa,

Western Division.

May 3, 2013.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Rockne Cole, Iowa City, IA, for Petitioner.

Richard J. Bennett, Iowa Attorney General, Des Moines, IA, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' OBJECTIONS TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DISPOSITION ON THE MERITS

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

+-----------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
                +-----------------¦
                ¦                 ¦
                +-----------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦I.  ¦INTRODUCTION                                           ¦922   ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Factual Background                                        ¦922    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦The murder and disposal of the body                   ¦922   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Disclosure of the location of the body                ¦923   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Procedural Background                                     ¦924    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦State proceedings                                     ¦924   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Conviction and direct appeal                      ¦924   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Post–conviction relief proceedings              ¦924   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦The district court's decision                ¦924    ¦
                +----+---+---+---+-----+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦The appellate court's decision               ¦928    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Federal Proceedings                                   ¦930   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Boss's 2254 Petition                              ¦930   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Proceedings on the merits                         ¦931   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦Objections to the recommended disposition         ¦934   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦     ¦                                                              ¦       ¦
                +-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦II.  ¦LEGAL ANALYSIS                                                ¦934    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Review Of A Report And Recommendation                     ¦934    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦The applicable standards                              ¦934   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦De novo review                                        ¦935   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦“Clear error” review                              ¦935   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦The Nature Of Boss's Constitutional Claims                ¦936    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Boss's pertinent objections                           ¦936   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦The underlying constitutional claims                  ¦936   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦The claims as pleaded and briefed                 ¦936   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Judge Strand's interpretations                    ¦937   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦  ¦3.  ¦Analysis of Boss's objections to the nature of his constitutional claims  ¦937 ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Boss's Objection 1                                ¦937   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Boss's Objection 5                                ¦938   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦C.  ¦The Nature Of Boss's Federal Habeas Claims                ¦939    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Federal habeas review of a state conviction           ¦939   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦“Exhausted” and “adjudicated” claims      ¦939   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦The “adjudicated on the merits” requirement   ¦940   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦The 2254(d)(1) standards                          ¦942   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦The “contrary to” clause                 ¦943    ¦
                +----+---+---+---+-----+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦The “unreasonable application” clause    ¦943    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦d.  ¦The 2254(d)(2) standard                                  ¦943   ¦
                +---+---+--+----+---------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦e.  ¦The effect of deficiencies in the state court decision   ¦944   ¦
                +---+---+--+----+---------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦f.  ¦De novo review of issues not reached by the state court  ¦944   ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Boss's federal habeas claims                          ¦945   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦D.  ¦Boss's Objections To The Disposition Of His Claims        ¦946    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦  ¦1.  ¦“Clearly established federal law” for “ineffective assistance” claims  ¦946  ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Strickland's “deficient performance” prong    ¦947   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Strickland's “prejudice prong”                ¦948   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦The rationale for the state court's decision          ¦950   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦“Deficient performance”                       ¦950   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
  • Boss v. Ludwick, 13–2168.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 25, 2014
    ...had killed Timothy”; and • Williams believed “the body would have been discovered by investigators at some point.”Boss v. Ludwick, 943 F.Supp.2d 917, 926 (N.D.Iowa 2013). Applying the standard announced in Strickland v. Washington,2 the Iowa Court of Appeals denied post-conviction relief, f......
  • Pension Trust Fund for Operating Eng'rs v. Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • May 3, 2013
Add as a preferred source on Google