Allwine v. Bolin

Filing 61

ORDER denying Petitioner's 34 Motion to Compel; denying Petitioner's 35 Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. (Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko on 8/30/2024. (jme)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Stephen Allwine,

No. 24-cv-439 (JRT/DLM)
Petitioner,
ORDER

v.
William Bolin, Warden of MCF Stillwater,
Respondent.
Before the Court are Petitioner Stephen Allwine’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 34) and
Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 35). Respondent opposes both motions. (Docs.
57 (Response in Opposition to Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing), 58 (Response in
Opposition to Motion Compel).) This case comes before the Court under the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and has been referred
to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1
for resolution of non-dispositive motions. For the reasons explained below, the Court
denies Mr. Allwine’s Motion to Compel and Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Allwine was convicted in Minnesota state court of First-Degree Murder for the
November 13, 2016 death of his wife. State v. Allwine, 963 N.W.2d 178 (Minn. 2021);
Allwine v. State, 994 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. 2023). He is incarcerated at Minnesota
Correctional Facility-Stillwater (“MCF-Stillwater”). After two unsuccessful state appeals,
Mr. Allwine now petitions the Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1

2254. (Doc. 2.) Mr. Allwine raises multiple claims for habeas relief based on various
alleged Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. (See generally id.) However,
relevant to the present motions are Mr. Allwine’s claims of Brady1 and Napue2 violations,
ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct. In his
Motion to Compel, Mr. Allwine moves the Court for an Order compelling “the State of
Minnesota, the Washington County Prosecutor’s Office, the Cottage Grove Police
Department, the Ramsey County Medical Examiner’s Office, and Computer Forensic
Services to produce any and all evidence related to the items” outlined in the motion. (Doc.
34 at 1.) In his Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, Mr. Allwine moves the Court for “an
evidentiary hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial
misconduct.” (Doc. 35 at 1.) The Court considers both motions below.
ANALYSIS
I.

MR. ALLWINE’S MOTION TO COMPEL.
The Court first examines Mr. Allwine’s Motion to Compel. Mr. Allwine asks the

Court for an order compelling various items of discovery which he argues will help him
establish constitutional violations in support of his habeas petition. Respondent counters
that Mr. Allwine’s motion should be denied because his habeas claims are procedurally
defaulted, and even if his claims were not procedurally defaulted, Mr. Allwine has failed
to establish good cause for discovery.

1
2

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959).
2

“A habeas petitioner [such as Mr. Allwine], unlike the usual civil litigant in federal
court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520
U.S. 899, 904 (1997). But under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, “[a] judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct
discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of
discovery.” Rule 6(a) Leave of Court required, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. “The
‘good cause’ that authorizes discovery under Rule 6(a) requires a showing ‘that the
petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled
to [habeas] relief.’” Rucker v. Norris, 563 F.3d 766, 771 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bracy,
520 U.S. at 909); See also Carridine v. Richous, No. 15-cv-4167 (JRT/FLN), 2016 WL
7480710, at *7 (D. Minn. July 6, 2016), R. & R. adopted, WL 7477758 (D. Minn. Dec. 29,
2016).
Here, Mr. Allwine has failed to establish good cause for an order compelling
discovery because he has failed to show that if the factual bases of his allegations were
fully developed, he would be entitled to habeas relief.3 The Court addresses each of Mr.
Allwine’s discovery requests below.
A.

Trail camera images from November 13, 2016.
Mr. Allwine first asks the Court for an order compelling trail camera images from

November 13, 2016—the day his wife died. Mr. Allwine claims these images are necessary

Because good cause disposes of Mr. Allwine’s motion, the Court declines to address
Respondent’s procedural default arguments at this time and focuses its analysis on good
cause.
3

3

because “they provide date and time-stamped evidence of [a neighbor’s] eyewitness
testimony” in which he claims to have seen the victim alive on the day she was murdered.
(Doc. 34 at 5.) He argues that the images support his position that he did not drug the
victim; that she was killed after Mr. Allwine left their home; and “the State engaged in
misconduct by impeaching a defense witness that they knew was telling the truth.” (Id. at
7.) But Mr. Allwine has not established good cause for an order compelling the production
of these images.
Mr. Allwine does not dispute that information contained on the trail camera was
disclosed to him in writing during the state court proceedings against him, Allwine II, 994
N.W.2d at 543, and he offers no reason why the written description of the images is
insufficient. Nor has Mr. Allwine explained that such discovery would entitle him to habeas
relief. Accordingly, Mr. Allwine has failed to establish good cause to compel the
production of the trail camera images.
B.

A hard copy of Investigator Jonathan Banks’s notes.
Mr. Allwine next moves the Court for an order compelling the production of a hard

copy of Ramsey County Investigator Jonathan Banks’s notes and emails about the
investigation into the victim’s death. Investigator Banks examined the victim’s body at the
scene on the evening of her death. Mr. Allwine asserts that Investigator Banks’s notes and
emails are necessary to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel and establish
the victim’s time of death. But Mr. Allwine has not established good cause for an order
compelling the production of such documents.

4

For his habeas petition to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Mr.
Allwine must show that there was a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the trial would have been different.” Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient
to undermine confidence in the outcome,” id., not merely a conceivable likelihood of a
different result, Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011). Even if Mr. Allwine could
establish unprofessional errors by his trial counsel, he has not explained how the requested
discovery will establish a reasonable probability that the trial’s outcome would have been
different, but for trial counsel’s alleged errors. Mr. Allwine has not shown how the
requested discovery will entitle him to habeas relief and therefore has not shown good
cause for an order compelling the production of hard copies of Investigator Banks’s notes
and emails about the victim’s death.
C.

Hard copies of Petitioner’s Bitcoin address from his cellphone and an image of
the Petitioner’s phone.
Next, Mr. Allwine requests an order compelling production of his Bitcoin address,

as well as an image of his cellphone. Mr. Allwine asserts that this “evidence is both
exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence” and was suppressed by the prosecution,
presumably constituting a Brady violation. (Doc. 34 at 8, 9.) To establish a Brady violation,
Mr. Allwine must show that the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, it was
favorable to him as either exculpatory or impeaching, and the evidence was material to the
outcome of the proceedings. 373 U.S. at 87. But Mr. Allwine offers no evidence, beyond
his own assertions, that the evidence he seeks was suppressed by the prosecution, or that it
5

was either exculpatory or impeaching. He also offers no evidence that the discovery he
requests was material to the state court proceedings. Because Mr. Allwine fails to establish
evidence of a Brady violation, he has failed to show how this discovery will help him
prevail in this habeas action and has failed to establish good cause to compel its production.
D.

Hard copies of “additional emails” from the FBI.
Mr. Allwine next moves the Court for an order compelling the production of hard

copies of “additional emails” between the screen name DogdayGod4 and Besa Mafia5
which are in the FBI’s possession. (Doc. 34 at 9-10.) He contends that these emails will
also help him establish a Brady violation. Although Mr. Allwine asserts that these
additional emails are favorable to him, he provides no evidence of their suppression by the
prosecution. Moreover, it is difficult to see how these emails might put the case in a
different light or change the outcome of the trial considering not just the strength of the
evidence but also the state’s theory of the case that Mr. Allwine tried to put a hit out on his
wife and once that didn’t work killed her himself, which was supported by not just the
computer forensic evidence but also the gunshot residue evidence. Thus, Mr. Allwine has
not shown how the requested discovery will entitle him to habeas relief and therefore he
has not shown good cause for an order compelling the production of hard copies of
additional emails in the FBI’s possession.

4

DogdayGod is a screen name which the state alleged Mr. Allwine used to hire a hit on
the victim.
5
Besa Mafia is the dark web organization which the state alleged Mr. Allwine used to try
to hire someone to kill the victim.
6

E.

Hard copies of emails between the victim and FBI agents and a soft copy image
of Petitioner’s laptop.
Mr. Allwine also seeks an order compelling the production of hard copies of emails

between the victim and the FBI, and a soft copy image of his laptop. Mr. Allwine posits
that these emails, and the image of his laptop are material impeachment evidence against
the state’s computer expert, which the prosecution suppressed in violation of Brady. He
also asserts that “[the victim’s] emails to the FBI also provide evidence directly from [the
victim] that she believed [another person] was dogdaygod, which directly contradicts the
State’s theory.” (Id. at 13.) But as with the additional emails in the FBI’s possession, Mr.
Allwine has neither produced evidence that these emails were suppressed by the
prosecution, nor that the emails would change the outcome of the trial given the state’s
theory that Mr. Allwine killed the victim himself when the hit he hired fell apart, a theory
supported by other computer forensic evidence and gunshot residue evidence adduced at
trial. As a result, Mr. Allwine fails to show how the requested discovery entitles him the
habeas relief and thus has not shown good cause for an order compelling their production.
F.

List of cases in which computer forensic expert Mark Lanterman was
qualified as an expert.
Mr. Allwine also seeks an order compelling Mr. Lanterman to produce a list of every

case in which he was qualified as an expert witness. Mr. Allwine contends that such a list
will establish that Mr. Lanterman lied to the jury about his qualifications and constitutes
impeachment evidence against Mr. Lanterman. Thus, according to Mr. Allwine, its
production will establish another Brady violation by the prosecution. But again, Mr.
Allwine offers no evidence that such a list will favor him, that the prosecution suppressed
7

this information, or that it would alter the outcome of the trial. Mr. Allwine has advanced
no evidence to establish a Brady violation and has not explained how the requested
discovery will help him prevail in this habeas action. Therefore, Mr. Allwine has not
established good cause for an order compelling the production of a list of all the cases in
which Mr. Lanterman has been qualified as an expert.
G.

SuperAmerica surveillance video.
Mr. Allwine next requests an order compelling the production of surveillance video

from the SuperAmerica gas station that shows Mr. Allwine was not at the gas station, where
he claimed to be, during the victim’s murder. Mr. Allwine claims that the state either
withheld this video in violation of Brady, or knowingly failed to correct false testimony
about the video’s contents in violation of Napue. But Mr. Allwine offers no evidence of a
Brady or Napue violation. Indeed, he points out in his motion that the police reports which
he received in discovery state that the prosecution never collected the SuperAmerica
surveillance footage, making it difficult to see how the video could have then been
suppressed by the prosecution. He also offers no evidence, beyond his own assertions, that
the trial testimony about the video’s contents was false or that prosecution knew it was
false and failed to correct the record. As a result, Mr. Allwine has failed to show how the
requested surveillance footage would help him establish that he is entitled to habeas relief.
H.

Police reports.
Next, Mr. Allwine requests an order from the Court compelling the state to produce

copies of police reports listed in the state’s discovery disclosure, “but yet never made it to
Petitioner.” (Id. at 17.) But Mr. Allwine’s argument relies on speculation only. He
8

acknowledges that his own counsel may have the reports but failed to pass them along to
him. And he offers no evidence that the prosecution suppressed the reports. Nor does he
offer evidence that the substance of the reports is favorable to him or would have changed
the outcome of the trial. Thus, he cannot establish a Brady violation. Because he does not
explain how the requested reports will show that he is entitled to habeas relief, the Court
finds that Mr. Allwine has shown no good cause for an order compelling the state to
produce the requested police reports.
I.

Hard copies of allegedly missing Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”)
crime scene photos and BCA lab reports #1-10.
Mr. Allwine next asks the Court for an order compelling the production of BCA

crime scene photos and BCA lab reports allegedly missing from the prosecution’s
disclosures. Mr. Allwine alleges that he “received an electronic copy of the BCA photos
that were taken at the scene” but “it was obvious that [some] photos were missing” and
“[t]he pictures appear to be selectively pulled out by the State” in violation of Brady. (Id.
at 18.) He also claims that “[t]he evidence disclosed as part of discovery does not include
all 10 reports” which are allegedly related to “DNA and biological evidence from the
scene.” (Id. at 19.) But again, Mr. Allwine offers no evidence that the state suppressed
these documents. Nor does he establish that the requested discovery is exculpatory or
impeaching evidence, or that it would have changed the outcome of the trial. Mr. Allwine
fails to explain how these documents will establish that he is entitled to habeas relief. Thus,
he has not shown good cause for an order compelling the production of allegedly missing
BCA crime scene photos and lab reports.
9

J.

Soft copies of all incoming and outgoing call logs and text logs.
Finally, Mr. Allwine asks the Court for an order compelling the production of soft

copies of all incoming and outgoing call and text logs from five different phone numbers.
He insists that these call and text logs will establish either a Naupe violation because a state
witness falsely testified about a call which Mr. Allwine asserts did not take place; or a
Brady violation because the call and text logs “would have been impeachment evidence to
show that the Prosecution was encouraging their witness to lie on the stand.” (Id. at 20.)
But Mr. Allwine offers no evidence to show that these logs were either suppressed in
violation of Brady or that the state knowingly failed to correct false testimony in violation
of Naupe. He fails to explain how the requested call and text logs will help him establish
that he is entitled to habeas relief. Mr. Allwine has therefore failed to establish good cause
for an order compelling the production of the requested call and text logs.
*

*

*

Finding that Mr. Allwine has failed to show good cause for discovery, the Court
denies Mr. Allwine’s Motion to Compel in its entirety.
II.

MR. ALLWINE’S MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS
DENIED.
The Court next turns to Mr. Allwine’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing in which

he “moves this Court to hold an evidentiary hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct.” (Doc. 35 at 1.) Respondent again argues that
Mr. Allwine is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because his claims are procedurally
defaulted. But even if his claims are not defaulted, Respondent insists that the Court should
10

deny Mr. Allwine’s motion because “Petitioner only offers vague and unsupported
allegations” and “fails to disclose what evidence would be submitted to support” his
allegations. (Doc. 57 at 1, 6.) Mr. Allwine argues that an evidentiary hearing is necessary
because he could not establish the factual bases of his claims in state court. The Court sets
aside Respondent’s procedural default argument for now and focuses its determination on
the depth of the record and Mr. Allwine’s claims.
In Section 2254 proceedings, “a determination of a factual issue made by a [s]tate
court shall be presumed to be correct.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The petitioner bears the
burden of “of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”
Id. If the petitioner has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in state court, a federal
court will only hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim if the petitioner shows that—
(A) the claim relies on— (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously
discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying
the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence
that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found
the applicant guilty of the underlying offense
Id. § 2254(e)(2)(A)-(B). When determining whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, Rule 8
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases directs courts to “review the answer, any
transcripts and records of state-court proceedings, and any materials submitted under Rule
7.” Rule 8 Evidentiary Hearing, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the District Courts.
Courts in the Eighth Circuit have declined to hold an evidentiary hearing, where
the magistrate determined that the record, containing [petitioner’s] petition,
the government’s response, briefs, a Minnesota Supreme Court decision, and
the trial transcript was sufficient for deciding [petitioner’s] claims . . . [and]
11

petitioner offered only general allegations and failed to show what evidence
he intended to present at the evidentiary hearing.
Amos v. State of Minn., 849 F.2d 1070, 1072 (8th Cir. 1988) (upholding district court’s
denial of habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing).
The Court here has reviewed Mr. Allwine’s petition, the government’s responses,
briefs, the two Minnesota Supreme Court decisions related to the state court proceedings,
and voluminous exhibits provided by both parties. Moreover, Mr. Allwine has offered only
general allegations and failed to show what evidence he would present at an evidentiary
hearing if one were granted. Therefore, given the depth of the record, it does not appear
that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to decide Mr. Allwine’s claims. Accordingly, Mr.
Allwine’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing is denied.
ORDER
Based on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT IS ORDERED
that:
1.

Petitioner Stephen Allwine’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 34) is DENIED; and

2.

Mr. Allwine’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 35) is DENIED.

DATED: August 30, 2024

s/Douglas L. Micko
DOUGLAS L. MICKO
United States Magistrate Judge

12