Malcolm Muhammad v. Leslie Green

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00662-LO-MSN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999752726]. Mailed to: Malcolm Muhammad. [15-6638]

Appeal: 15-6638

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/10/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6638

MALCOLM MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
LESLIE S. GREEN; WILLIAM R. BLAINE; ELIZABETH BALLARD, DNA
Forensic Scientist; ANN M. CONNELL, Deputy Clerk of Court;
NATHAN LEE, Judge; Circuit Court Judge,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00662-LO-MSN)

Submitted:

September 15, 2015

Decided:

February 10, 2016

Before KING, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.

Appeal: 15-6638

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/10/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6638

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/10/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Virginia

prisoner

Malcolm

Muhammad

appeals

the

district

court’s order dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012) for failure to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted.

We affirm in part

and dismiss in part.
Muhammad

contended

that

his

due

process

rights

were

violated when a Virginia state court denied his postconviction
motion, made pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-270.4:1 (2015),
for preservation of certain items of evidence.
to

have

results

DNA

testing

of

such

performed

testing

first-degree murder.

on

would

the

Muhammad hoped

evidence

establish

his

and

that

innocence

the
of

Muhammad’s chief contention was that, by

allegedly requiring that he prove that the evidence in question
constituted
incorrectly

human

biological

interpreted

and

evidence,

applied

the

the

state

statute

and

court
thereby

violated his due process rights.
The district court dismissed the case pursuant to Heck v.
Humphrey,

512

“establishing

U.S.
the

477

basis

(1994).
for

the

Heck
.

held

that

.

claim

necessarily

.

where

demonstrates the invalidity of the conviction,” a § 1983 action
will

not

lie

“unless

.

already been invalidated.”

.

.

the

conviction

or

Id. at 481-82, 487.

sentence

has

Subsequent to

Heck, the Supreme Court held that “a convicted state prisoner
3

Appeal: 15-6638

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/10/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence [may] assert that
claim

in

a

civil

rights

action

under

Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 524-25 (2011).

§ 1983.”

Skinner

v.

The Court observed that

gaining access to DNA testing alone does not necessarily imply
the unlawfulness of the conviction or sentence.
Application

of

Skinner

demonstrates

that

the

Id. at 525.
dismissal

of

Muhammad’s § 1983 action on the basis of Heck was error.
However, despite this error, we find that this action is
subject to dismissal on alternative grounds.

First, there is no

substantive due process right to the postconviction preservation
and testing of DNA evidence.

District Attorney’s Office for the

Third Judicial Circuit v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 72 (2009); see
also Skinner, 562 U.S. at 525.

Second, with respect to the

claimed

due

violation

of

procedural

process,

we

note

that

Muhammad does not claim that § 19.2-270.4:1 is itself invalid.
Rather, he contends that the state circuit court erroneously
applied the statute in deciding his case.
lack

jurisdiction

doctrine. *

over

this

claim

under

Lower federal courts
the

Rooker-Feldman

Cf. Skinner, 562 U.S. at 531-32; see Exxon Mobil

Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).

*

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462
(1983).

4

Appeal: 15-6638

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/10/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

We therefore affirm the dismissal of Muhammad’s substantive
due process claim and dismiss, for want of jurisdiction, his
procedural due process claim.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal issues are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

5