IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-31050

Summary Calendar

LUCAS JOSEPH RODDY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RICKY BABIN, District Attorney, 23rd Judicial District of Louisiana,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:17-CV-1352

Before BENAVIDES, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lucas Joseph Roddy, Louisiana prisoner # 458846, is serving a sentence 

of life imprisonment, which was imposed on account of his jury trial conviction 

of second-degree murder. Roddy filed in the district court a pro se pleading 

styled as a motion for a preliminary injunction, in which he named as the only 

defendant Ricky Babin, the District Attorney for the 23rd Judicial District of 

Louisiana. Roddy sought an order requiring Babin to provide him with certain 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 27, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-31050 Document: 00515323275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2020
No. 18-31050

2

clothing for DNA testing. Roddy later filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint form 

in which he claimed that Babin had violated his due process rights by refusing 

to provide him access to this physical evidence for the purpose of DNA testing. 

In the instant matter, Roddy appeals from the district court’s denial of 

his request for a preliminary injunction. He argues that DNA testing of the 

clothing in question will provide evidence to support his claim that his trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to seek such testing. 

Where a party seeks a preliminary injunction, he must show “(1) a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury if the 

injunction is not granted, (3) that the injury outweighs any harm to the other 

party, and (4) that granting the injunction will not disserve the public 

interest.” Brock Servs., L.L.C. v. Rogillio, 936 F.3d 290, 296 (5th Cir. 2019). 

“For a denial of a preliminary injunction, a district court’s findings of fact are 

subject to a clearly-erroneous standard of review, while conclusions of law are 

subject to broad review and will be reversed if incorrect.” In re Deepwater 

Horizon, 732 F.3d 326, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

“[A] postconviction claim for DNA testing is properly pursued in a § 1983 

action. Success in the suit gains for the prisoner only access to the DNA 

evidence, which may prove exculpatory, inculpatory, or inconclusive.” Skinner 

v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 525 (2011). In Dist. Attorney’s Office for the Third 

Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 72-73 (2009), the Supreme Court 

determined that there is no freestanding federal substantive due process right 

to post-conviction DNA testing, and the Court has noted that the Osborne 

decision “left slim room for the prisoner to show that the governing state law 

denies him procedural due process,” Skinner, 562 U.S. at 525. 

 Case: 18-31050 Document: 00515323275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2020
No. 18-31050

3

Under Louisiana law, a convicted criminal is entitled to a new trial when 

the “results of DNA testing performed pursuant to an application granted 

under Article 926.1 proves by clear and convincing that the petitioner is 

factually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.” State v. Johnson, 

23 So. 3d 876, 876 (La. 2009) (internal quotation marks and bracketed text 

omitted) (citing LA. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 926.1 and LA. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 930.3(7)). Pursuant to Article 926.1, a Louisiana prisoner

seeking DNA testing must file an application that includes, inter alia, 

“a factual explanation of why there is an articulable doubt, based on competent 

evidence whether or not introduced at trial, as to the guilt of the petitioner in 

that DNA testing will resolve the doubt and establish the innocence of the 

petitioner.” LA. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 926.1.

We take judicial notice of the state court trial records, see Landry 

v. Lynaugh, 844 F.2d 1122, 1124 n.8 (5th Cir. 1988), which reflect that the jury 

was charged under the law of principals, see LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14:24. The 

trial records further show that there was testimony as to Roddy’s participation 

in the shooting that resulted in the victim’s death. Considering the trial 

evidence in conjunction with the jury charge, we conclude that, no matter the 

results of DNA testing of the clothing at issue, it would still fall short of 

resolving doubt as to Roddy’s innocence of second-degree murder. 

Roddy has not shown reversible error in the denial of his request for DNA 

testing, styled as a motion for a preliminary injunction. See In re Deepwater 

Horizon, 732 F.3d at 332. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-31050 Document: 00515323275 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2020