Thomas Alford v. Stephen Carlton

MEMORANDUM

Thomas T. Alford, a California state prisoner, 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. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2007) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Alford’s action was proper because Alford failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 , 181 S.Ct. 1289 , 1293, 1298, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011) (a prisoner can state a cognizable § 1983 claim by alleging a general constitutional challenge to a state post-conviction DNA testing statute, but…