Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. D.C. No. CV-06-02470-RLH. Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding.
DAVID SCOTT HARRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, San Luis Obispo, CA.
For BONNIE M. DUMANIS, San Diego District Attorney, Defendant - Appellee: Ricky Rodriguez Sanchez, Esquire, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL, San Diego, CA.
Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
David Scott Harrison appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Harrison's action because Harrison has stated no viable due process claim seeking access to the DNA evidence at issue. See Dist. Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 129 S.Ct. 2308, 2320-22, 174 L.Ed.2d 38 (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, as well as no substantive due process right to post-conviction access to DNA evidence).
AFFIRMED.