Court Opinion

ID: 2676325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-05-29 21:00:32.877448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:30:19.629525
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           MAY 29 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANCE KERWIN HENDERSON,                          No. 13-15280

                Plaintiff - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01392-EFB

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, at
Sacramento; et al.,

                Defendants - Appellees.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of California
                   Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

                               Submitted May 13, 2014***

Before:         CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

       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

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **Henderson consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
          ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 (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.

                                           2                                     13-15280