Case Name: Lance Kerwin HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, at Sacramento; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-29
Citations: 576 F. App'x 666
Docket Number: No. 13-15280
Parties: Lance Kerwin HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, at Sacramento; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 576
Pages: 666–667

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.