N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ANTHONY LYLE TAR

KINGTON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. W ILLIAM SM ITH, Jr., De puty Distric t Attorne y , offic ia l c a

p a c ity ; M A R

Y SANC HEZ, De puty Attorne y Ge n e ra l, offic ia l c a pa c ity , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55911 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-04849-JAK-E M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John A. Kronstadt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 26, 2014 ** B e fore : THOM AS, OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r Anthony

Ly le Tarkington a

p pe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e n t dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging de nia l of 

# FIL ED SEP 4 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).post-c onvic tion a c c e ss to biologic a l e vide nc e for DNA te sting. W e have

jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Le e v . C i ty of Los Ange le s , 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th C ir. 2001). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ta

rkington’ s due proc e ss c la im s be c a use Ta rkington fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to sta t e a c o gniz a ble c la im for re lie f. Se e Sk

inne r v . Sw itze r , 131 S. C t. 1289, 1298-1300 (2011) (prisone r c an sta te a c ogniz a

ble § 1983 c la im

by a lle ging a

ge ne ra l c onstitutiona

l c ha lle nge to sta te post-c onvic tion DNA te s ting sta tute , but not by

c ha lle n ging suc h sta

tute ’ s a pplic ation in his c a se ; Brady v . Mary l and, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), is ina pplic a ble to due proc e ss c la im s for post-c onvic t ion DNA te sting); D ist. Attorne y ’s Offic e for the Third J

udic ial Dist. v . Osborne , 557 U.S. 52, 69-72 (2009) (due proc e ss re quire s only

tha t the sta te ’ s proc e dure s for post-c onvic tion re lie f do not offe nd funda m e nta l princ iple s of justic e or tra nsgre ss a ny re c ogniz e d princ iple of funda m e nta l fa irne ss in ope ra tion); W e st v . Atk i ns , 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (“ To sta te a c la im unde r § 1983, a

pla intiff m

ust a lle ge a viola

tion of a right se c ure d by the C onstitution or la

ws of the Unite d State s[.] ” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Ta rkington le ave to am e nd his c om

pla int be c a

u s e am e ndm e nt would ha v e be e n futile . Se e C

e rv ante s v . C ountryw ideHome Loans, Inc . , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2011) (se tting forth 2 1 3 - 5 5 9 1 1the s ta

n da rd of re v i e w a

nd noting tha

t the distric t c o urt m ay

dism iss without le ave to a m e nd whe n am e ndm e n t

would befutile ). Tarkington’ s c o nte n tions c onc e rning disc o ve ry and the de fa ult judgme nt a ga inst Sm ith a

re unpe rsua sive . AFFIRM E D .

3 1 3 - 5 5 9 1 1