## 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 Office; Mike Freeman, in his individual * and official capacities as County * [UNPUBLISHED] Attorney; Robert J. Streitz, in his * individual and official capacities as * Assistant County Attorney, * * Appellees.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 St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and r ecommendation 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’s 1 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 ri ghts 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, concludi ng Barnes had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be grante d. 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) (s tandard of review), we fi nd the district court did not err in concluding Barnes had failed to state a due process claim. SeeDist. Attorney’s Office for the Third Judi cial 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 ha s 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 pr ovisions, 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 conduc t and the deprivation of a constitutional right). Finally, we hold the district c ourt did not abuse its discretion in denying Barnes’s motion for appointment of counsel, seeMcCall 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 c ounsel), 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.

______________________________