Anthony Tarkington v. William Smith, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Anthony Lyle Tarkington appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of post-conviction access to biological evidence for DNA testing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Tarkington’s due process claims because Tarkington failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief. See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521,-, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1298-1300 , 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011) (prisoner can state a cognizable § 1983 claim by alleging a general constitutional challenge to state post-conviction DNA testing statute, but not by challenging such statute’s application in his case; Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), is inapplicable to due process claims for post-conviction DNA testing); Dist. Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 69-72 , 129 S.Ct. 2308 , 174 L.Ed.2d 38 (2009) (due process requires only that the state’s procedures for post-conviction relief do not offend…