Opinion
No. 13-15280 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01392-EFB
05-13-2014
LANCE KERWIN HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, at Sacramento; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Henderson consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
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 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.