Ivy v. Bolin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rashad R. Ivy, 	Civ. No. 25-208 (PAM/JFD)
Petitioner,
v. 	MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
William Bolin,
Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty dated November 14, 2025. 	(Docket
No. 31.) 	The R&R recommends denying Petitioner Rashad R. Ivy’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus. (Docket No. 1.) Ivy filed timely objections to the R&R.
BACKGROUND
In 2016, a jury in Ramsey County, Minnesota, convicted Petitioner Rashad R. Ivy
of second-degree sex trafficking, conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking in the second
degree, third-degree criminal sexual conduct, domestic assault by strangulation, and
second-degree solicitation to practice prostitution. The extensive procedural history is set
forth in the thorough R&R and will not be repeated in full. 	In brief, Ivy was originally
sentenced to 700 months’ imprisonment, but, after resentencing, his final sentence was 433
months’ imprisonment.
Ivy timely presented the instant Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising four
grounds for relief, contending that his trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective
and that Minnesota Statute 609.322, subdivision 1a is unconstitutional. (Docket No. 1.)
CASE 0:25-cv-00208-PAM-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 4

2
DISCUSSION
According to statute, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the
R&R to which specific objections are made. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). 	After conducting the required review and for the
following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R.
A. 	Trial Counsel’s Effectiveness
In ground one, Ivy argues that the R&R failed to properly address Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), because his appellate counsel should have raised claims
of prosecutorial misconduct. 	This argument lacks merit. 	Magistrate Judge Docherty
properly analyzed Strickland and correctly concluded that Ivy failed to meet either of its
prongs demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel. 	Although Ivy disagrees with the
R&R’s conclusion, he fails to identify any factual or legal basis conflicting with the well-
reasoned R&R.
In ground two, Ivy disagrees with the R&R’s determination that his appellate
counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise various arguments about his trial counsel’s
ineffectiveness. As for Ivy’s arguments that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
investigate and object, the R&R explains that the state court determined Ivy failed to show
that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that
the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had counsel acted differently.
Moreover, Ivy fails to show “that the state courts unreasonably applied, or issued a decision
contrary to, clearly established federal law.” (R&R at 12.) The R&R further explains that
CASE 0:25-cv-00208-PAM-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 4

3
the state court determined Ivy “had not identified an actual conflict, only differences in
litigation strategy.” (Id. at 13.) This objection is overruled.
B. 	Minnesota Statute § 609.322 subdivision 1a
Ivy raises two objections to the R&R’s conclusions regarding the constitutionality
of Minnesota Statute § 609.322 subdivision 1a, which prohibits sex trafficking and
solicitation, inducement, and promotion of prostitution. Both objections fail.
Regarding ground three, Ivy failed to raise any constitutional challenge to the statute
in state court in his direct appeal; therefore, as the R&R found, this challenge is
procedurally defaulted. 	Ivy asserts that his appellate counsel advised that the challenge
should be raised in a postconviction proceeding. 	The R&R explains that although
ineffective assistance of counsel can be the basis to excuse a procedural default, Ivy falls
far short of demonstrating that his attorney provided ineffective assistance to warrant any
excusal.
In ground four, Ivy contends that R&R erred in concluding that his appellate
counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable for failing to challenge the
constitutionality of Minnesota Statute § 609.322 subdivision 1a. Ivy claims that the statute
is unconstitutional because 85% of the defendants sentenced under the statute are
minorities. As the R&R concluded, even accepting Ivy’s statistic at face value, the statute
does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause because the statute
does not classify individuals based on race. 	Further, Ivy presents no evidence that it
disproportionally impacts minorities, nor has Ivy provided evidence of discriminatory
intent or purpose behind the statute’s enactment. (R&R at 16–17.) Ivy fails to show that
CASE 0:25-cv-00208-PAM-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 4

4
the state court’s conclusion regarding the statute’s constitutionality violated clearly
established federal law. Thus, Ivy’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the
statute’s constitutionality. This objection lacks merit.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Ivy is required to secure a Certificate of Appealability before appealing the
dismissal of his habeas corpus action. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1).
This Court cannot grant a Certificate of Appealability unless Ivy “has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 	28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 	“A petitioner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason . . . could conclude the issues
presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 	Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 	The R&R correctly found that a Certificate of
Appealability should not issue. A Certificate of Appealability is therefore denied.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	The R&R (Docket No. 31) is ADOPTED;
2. 	Ivy’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED;
3. 	This matter is DISMISSED; and
4. 	A Certificate of Appealability will not issue.
LET JUDGEMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 5, 2026 	s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-00208-PAM-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 05/06/26 Page 4 of 4