From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turner v. Dumanis

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 24, 2011
415 F. App'x 831 (9th Cir. 2011)

Summary

affirming dismissal of constitutional challenge to alleged destruction of DNA evidence under Heck

Summary of this case from Michael v. Siemers

Opinion

No. 09-55524.

Submitted February 15, 2011.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed February 24, 2011.

Nathan Kevin Turner, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Morris Gerard Hill, Esquire, Walter C. Chung, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00360-W-RBB.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Nathan Kevin Turner, 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, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Turner's claims that he was denied post-conviction access to biological evidence for DNA testing because he has not stated a viable due process claim. See Dist. Attorney's Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2308, 2320-23, 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, and that there was no substantive due process right to post-conviction access to DNA evidence).

The district court properly dismissed Turner's claims that defendants destroyed materially exculpatory evidence in bad faith because Turner's conviction has not been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (holding that a constitutional claim that necessarily implies the invalidity of a conviction cannot be brought under § 1983 unless the conviction has already been invalidated).

Turner's remaining contentions are un-persuasive.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Turner v. Dumanis

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 24, 2011
415 F. App'x 831 (9th Cir. 2011)

affirming dismissal of constitutional challenge to alleged destruction of DNA evidence under Heck

Summary of this case from Michael v. Siemers
Case details for

Turner v. Dumanis

Case Details

Full title:Nathan Kevin TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bonnie DUMANIS, District…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 24, 2011

Citations

415 F. App'x 831 (9th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

Tarkington v. Smith

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot bypass the habeas remedy by arguing in a civil rights action that his conviction…

Stuart v. City of Scottsdale

Therefore, Count One(a) is Heck-barred until Mr. Stuart has invalidated his underlying conviction. See Soto,…