Case ID: f-appx_576/html/0666-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lance Kerwin HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, at Sacramento; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15280.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 29, 2014.
    Lance Kerwin Henderson, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Lance Kerwin Henderson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of post-conviction access to biological evidence for DNA testing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Henderson’s claims alleging that Henderson was denied post-conviction access to biological evidence for DNA testing because he failed to allege sufficient facts to state a viable due process claim. See Dist. Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 69-72, 129 S.Ct. 2308, 174 L.Ed.2d 38 (2009) (holding that plaintiff had no viable procedural due process claim because state’s procedures for post-conviction relief did not transgress recognized principles of fundamental fairness, and that there was no substantive due process right to post-conviction access to DNA evidence).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.