United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2458

___________

DeAndre Jerome Barnes, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Hennepin County District Attorney’s * District of Minnesota.

Office; Mike Freeman, in his individual *

and official capacities as County * [UNPUBLISHED]

Attorney; Robert J. Streitz, in his *

individual and official capacities as *

Assistant County Attorney, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 2, 2010

Filed: February 5, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Arthur J.

Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Minnesota inmate DeAndre Barnes (Barnes) appeals the district court’s1

dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Hennepin County

District Attorney’s Office and two of its prosecutors (defendants) for allegedly

violating his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by

refusing to provide him with post-conviction access to witness statements. The

district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding Barnes had failed to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On appeal, Barnes argues the district

court erred in dismissing his due process claim and abused its discretion in denying

his motion for appointment of counsel. In addition, he attempts for the first time to

articulate claims under the First, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, and requests a refund

of his filing fees.

Upon careful de novo review, see Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517

F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review), we find the district court did not

err in concluding Barnes had failed to state a due process claim. See Dist. Attorney’s

Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 2320

(2009) (“Osborne’s right to due process is not parallel to a trial right, but rather must

be analyzed in light of the fact that he has already been found guilty at a fair trial, and

has only a limited interest in postconviction relief. Brady is the wrong framework.”).

We further hold the district court did not err in concluding Barnes’s claims under the

First, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments described no conduct by defendants that violated

the rights secured by these constitutional provisions, and thus Barnes failed to state

a claim as to each. See Gordon v. Hansen, 168 F.3d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir. 1999) (per

curiam) (explaining, for a § 1983 claim to succeed, the plaintiff must show a causal

relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the deprivation of a constitutional

right). Finally, we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Barnes’s motion for appointment of counsel, see McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756
-3-

(8th Cir. 1997) (stating the standard of review and the factors to evaluate in

determining the need for appointment of counsel), and we lack authority to refund

Barnes’s filing fees, cf. Porter v. Dept. of Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 180 (3d Cir. 2009)

(declaring an appellate court has no authority to waive in forma pauperis fees).

We affirm.

______________________________