Morrison v. Peterson, No. 13-15675 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the constitutionality of post-conviction DNA testing under California Penal Code 1405. The court rejected plaintiff's contention that the promise held out by section 1405 is illusory and the court was unpersuaded by the statistics plaintiff cited. The court concluded that tallying the available judicial decisions does not suggest that section 1405 in practice bars access to postconviction DNA testing. The court further concluded that the reasonable probability requirement does not violate due process where plaintiff failed to show that the requirement violates any recognized principle of fundamental fairness or goes beyond what the Supreme Court approved in District Attorney’s
Office for Third Judicial District v. Osborne. Moreover, the chain of custody requirement does not violate due process. The court finally concluded that the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine does not bar plaintiff's as-applied challenge because plaintiff seeks to invalidate the DNA testing statute on federal constitutional grounds. While review by someone other than the trial judge does not occur in every case, it is a categorical issue not limited to the particulars of plaintiff’s situation. The court went on to say that review of the section 1405 petition by a judge other than the trial judge does not violate due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal on the merits of an action brought by a California state prisoner challenging the constitutionality of California Penal Code § 1405, which provides a mechanism for those convicted of crimes to obtain DNA testing of evidence where such testing is potentially relevant to proving innocence. The panel first rejected plaintiff’s contention that the promise held out by § 1405 is illusory, noting that the available judicial decisions and statistics did not suggest that § 1405 in practice bars access to postconviction DNA testing. The panel next addressed plaintiff’s facial challenge to section 1405(f)(5), which requires a movant to demonstrate that the requested DNA testing results would raise a reasonable probability, that in light of all the evidence, the verdict or sentence would have been more favorable if the results of DNA testing had been available at the time of the conviction. The panel held that plaintiff did not show that § 1405’s “reasonable probability” requirement violated any recognized principle of fundamental fairness or went beyond what the Supreme Court approved in District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009). The panel further held that the chain of custody requirement in § 1405(f)(2) did not transgress any recognized principle of fundamental fairness in operation. MORRISON V. PETERSON 3 The panel held that even though a portion of plaintiff’s challenge to the statute was “as applied,” the challenge was not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because plaintiff sought to invalidate the DNA testing statute on federal constitutional grounds. Addressing the “as applied” challenge, the panel held that a review of a § 1405 petition by a judge other than the trial judge does not violate due process.
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.