470 F. App'x 275
5th Cir.2012Background
- In 1984, Elam was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to life in prison.
- In 2008, Elam sought post-conviction DNA testing under Texas Article 64.01; state court denied.
- Court of Appeals denied; discretionary review was refused; Elam filed §1983 district court suit alleging due process violation.
- District court dismissed the §1983 claim as frivolous and for failure to state a claim; this court reviews de novo.
- Court held there is no freestanding right to DNA testing, but Texas provides a right; testing must be adequate to protect substantive rights; further testing unlikely to be probative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of DNA testing violated due process | Elam argues denial violated due process due to unreliable trial evidence | State courts provided adequate procedures under Art. 64.03 | No due process violation; testing not probative of guilt |
| Whether Texas Article 64.01 provides sufficient process for due process protections | Texas procedures inadequately protect rights | Statutory framework adequately protects rights | Procedural framework deemed adequate; no liberty-right violation recognized |
| Whether dismissal as frivolous constitutes a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) | Dismissal should not be treated as a strike | Dismissal qualifies as a strike | Dismissal affirmed; counts as a strike; warning issued |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (2011) (DNA testing rights and procedures)
- Osborne v. District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist., 129 S. Ct. 2308 (2009) (due process protections in DNA testing)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (three-strikes rule for § 1915(g))