Lance Kerwin Henderson v. District Attorney Office, at Sacramento;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANCE KERWIN HENDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, at
Sacramento; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-15280
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01392-EFB
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 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.
13-15280 2

-- 2 of 2 --