Reported / Citable
Background
Edward Hill, a Texas prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought a § 1983 action concerning his second state-court motion for postconviction forensic DNA testing under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 64. Hill alleged that Smith County District Attorney Jacob Putman and an assistant district attorney, West, failed to respond to the motion and to turn over State Exhibit 51, described as latex gloves, for testing.
The state trial court denied Hill’s DNA-testing motion, and a state appellate court affirmed in a written opinion. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Hill lacked Article III standing, that sovereign immunity barred the action, and that the complaint failed to state a claim. Magistrate Judge John D. Love recommended dismissal, and Hill objected.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle overruled Hill’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as the district court’s opinion, and dismissed Hill’s claims. After de novo review of the objected-to portions of the report, the court found Hill’s objections meritless.
The court agreed that a prisoner has no freestanding constitutional right to postconviction DNA testing and cannot directly challenge in federal court a state court’s denial of such testing. It also accepted the magistrate judge’s conclusion that, under Chapter 64, the convicting court may order DNA testing; the state attorney does not have enforcement authority under that chapter.
Key Takeaways
- A § 1983 plaintiff cannot assert a freestanding constitutional entitlement to postconviction DNA testing.
- A federal suit cannot directly challenge a state court’s denial of a postconviction DNA-testing request.
- Under the court’s reading of Texas Chapter 64, the convicting court—not the state attorney—may order forensic DNA testing.
Why It Matters
The order underscores the limited federal constitutional basis for claims challenging state postconviction DNA-testing procedures. Allegations that prosecutors did not respond to a Chapter 64 motion or produce evidence for testing did not state a viable federal claim here, particularly after the state courts had denied the testing request.