Hill v. Putman et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
EDWARD HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACOB PUTMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-423-JDK-JDL
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Edward Hill, a Texas prisoner incarcerated within the Ellis Unit of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding
postconviction DNA testing. The case was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for
the disposition of the case.
I.
Plaintiff complains that Defendants Putnam and West, District Attorney and
Assistant District Attorney of Smith County, Texas, failed to file a response to his
second motion for forensic DNA testing under Chapter 64 in state court. Though the
trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion—and the appellate court affirmed the denial in a
written opinion—Plaintiff maintains that Defendants violated his constitutional
rights for “refusing” to answer his motion and “turn over” State Exhibit 51, latex
gloves, for testing.
Case 6:25-cv-00423-JDK-JDL Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Docket No. 18. In their motion,
Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to establish Article III standing or any exception
to sovereign immunity. Defendants further contend that Plaintiff failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
On July 20, 2026, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court
grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Docket No. 30. Specifically, Judge Love
highlighted that a prisoner has no freestanding constitutional right to postconviction
DNA testing—and that if a request for postconviction DNA testing is denied in state
court, a prisoner cannot make a direct challenge in federal court concerning that
denial. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge found that Chapter 64 provides that a
convicting court may order forensic DNA testing rather than the state attorney who
has no enforcement authority under the Chapter. After the Court granted Plaintiff
an extension of time to do so, Plaintiff filed a motion to exceed the page limits, Docket
No. 35, and timely objections, Docket No. 36.
II.
Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court
reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire
record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Alexander v. Verizon
Wireless Servs., LLC, 875 F.3d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 2017).
For those portions of the Report to which no objections are filed, the Court
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and
reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See
Case 6:25-cv-00423-JDK-JDL Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no
objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly
erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Plaintiff raises three objections to the Report: (1) he is required to only provide
a “short and plain statement” of his claim at this stage; (2) under Texas law, the State
Attorney is required to answer within 60 days of receiving the motion for
postconviction DNA testing; and (3) the State’s process for considering his request for
DNA testing was fundamentally unfair because Defendants refused to answer his
request and failed to turn over Exhibit 51, latex gloves.
Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the
Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly,
the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (Docket No. 36) and ADOPTS the
Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 30) as the opinion of the District Court.
Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14th	October, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00423-JDK-JDL Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>