Vincent Cooper v. Carlton Jones, No. 15-2183 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Dismissal of Section 1983 complaint seeking access to DNA testing is affirmed; no error in denying motions for appointment of counsel and for leave to amend complaint. [ January 25, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2183 ___________________________ Vincent M. Cooper lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carlton D. Jones, Prosecuting Attorney, Miller County lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana ____________ Submitted: January 20, 2016 Filed: January 26, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Vincent M. Cooper appeals after the district court1 dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denied his motions for appointment of counsel and for leave 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. to amend his complaint. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Cooper’s complaint sought postconviction access to DNA testing of certain evidence used at his criminal trial. Upon de novo review, this court concludes that the dismissal was proper. See Dist. Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 69, 72-75 (2009) (discussing contours of substantive and procedural due process rights related to postconviction access to DNA testing); Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (grant of motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cooper’s motions. See Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to denial of motion for appointment of counsel; discussing relevant factors); Joshi v. St. Luke’s Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 555, 557-58 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to denial of motion for leave to amend complaint; denial may be justified by futility of amendment). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
