Boss v. Ludwick, 863 F. Supp. 2d 845

Petitioner Boss was convicted of first-degree murder in Iowa in 2002 and sentenced to life without parole, with direct appeals culminating in 2004.
Boss pursued post-conviction relief in Iowa (2005–2008), with appellate proceedings through the Iowa Court of Appeals and Iowa Supreme Court, ultimately denied.
Boss filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 2010, later transferred to the current district; Grounds Two and Five were argued as unexhausted or defaulted.
Boss moved for a stay to exhaust unexhausted grounds, while respondent argued the unexhausted claims were futile and procedurally defaulted due to Iowa’s three-year limitations.
The magistrate judge recommended denying the stay, dismissing Grounds Two and Five with prejudice, and directing briefing on the merits of Grounds One, Three, and Four.
The district judge conducted de novo review of Boss’s objections and held Ground Two procedurally defaulted and dismissed; Ground Five dismissed as meritless; stay denied; deadlines set for merits briefing on remaining grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stay and abeyance should be granted.	Boss contends state remedies should be allowed to exhaust unexhausted grounds.	respondent argues stay would be futile since grounds are time-barred.	Stay moot; grounds defaulted, not eligible for stay.
Whether Boss can overcome procedural default of Ground Two.	Boss asserts ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel provides cause to excuse default.	State argues IAC cannot constitute cause and no actual innocence shown; default stands.	No adequate cause shown; Ground Two default upheld and dismissed.
Whether Ground Two is merely unexhausted or procedurally defaulted.	Boss contends Ground Two was unexhausted but not defaulted, warranting stay or merits consideration.	State treats Ground Two as procedurally defaulted due to untimely exhaustion in Iowa.	Ground Two treated as procedurally defaulted and thus the stay is moot.
Whether Ground Five is meritorious and should be dismissed.	Boss argues Heemstra retroactivity issue; claims merit.	State contends Heemstra retroactivity does not apply to final judgments; ground meritless.	Ground Five dismissed as without merit.

Armstrong v. Iowa, 418 F.3d 924 (8th Cir.2005) (exhaustion rules; deferral or dismissal when unexhausted grounds are not futile)
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (U.S. 2005) (stay and abeyance permitted for mixed petitions under limited circumstances)
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1982) (deadlines for mixed petitions; dismissal without prejudice to exhaust in state court)
White v. Dingle, 616 F.3d 844 (8th Cir.2010) (piecing out exhausted claims; stay and abeyance to avoid losing review due to AEDPA limits)
Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003) (§ 822.3 ground-of-fact could not have been raised earlier; timing exception)
Wemark v. Iowa, 322 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir.2003) (§ 822.8 sufficient reason for not raising ground; counsel failure context)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (U.S. 1999) (exhaustion requirement: must raise all claims in state courts)
Zeitvogel v. Delo, 84 F.3d 276 (8th Cir.1996) (miscarriage of justice as exception to default analysis)
Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 486 (U.S. 1986) (ineffective assistance of counsel not cause for default; general principles)
Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 795 (8th Cir.1996) (clear error standard when no timely objections)