LANCE HENDERSON V. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, No. 13-15280 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 29 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LANCE KERWIN HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-15280 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

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.