Alvarez v. Attorney General for Fla.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9325
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Alvarez was convicted in 1991 in Seminole County, Florida, of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and aggravated child abuse, and sentenced to life.
- Alvarez sought postconviction DNA testing access to physical evidence under Florida Rule 3.853 and Fla. Stat. § 925.11.
- The state trial court denied the postconviction petition; the Fifth District affirmed.
- Alvarez filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in federal court alleging due process, Eighth, Sixth, and access-to-courts violations.
- The district court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim or lack of jurisdiction; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court’s Osborne decision limiting federal review of state postconviction DNA procedures governs the analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker-Feldman bars Alvarez’s as-applied procedural due process challenge | Alvarez argues state court misapplied Florida DNA procedures. | Rooker-Feldman bars review of state-court judgments in § 1983 claims. | Barred by Rooker-Feldman. |
| Whether Osborne forecloses Alvarez’s actual innocence/substantive due process claim | Osborne supports a right to DNA testing to prove innocence. | There is no substantive due process right to DNA testing; Osborne governs. | Osborne forecloses the claim. |
| Whether Eighth/Sixth Amendment claims to access DNA evidence have merit | Access to DNA evidence could be framed under Eighth or Sixth Amendment. | Osborne rejects such constitutionalization. | Rejected under Osborne. |
| Whether Alvarez’s claim of denial of access to courts constitutes an injury under Bounds/Cunningham | State denial prevented him from accessing courts for relief. | Alvarez could pursue relief in state court; no actual injury shown. | No actual injury; claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Osborne v. District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (postconviction DNA access framework; no freestanding substantive due process right to DNA testing)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (2011) (rejects due process basis for creating new DNA-access rights; supports Osborne)
- Cunningham v. District Attorney’s Office, 592 F.3d 1237 (2010) (Osborne foreclosed Herrera-based actual innocence claims in § 1983)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman limits—state-court judgments not reviewable; doctrine narrowed)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (recognizes right of access to courts; requires injury to be actionable)