Vincent Cooper v. Carlton Jone


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Duane Benton, Pasco M. Bowman and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED) [4359554] [15-2183]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2183 ___________________________ Vincent M. Cooper lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carlton D. Jones, Prosecuting Attorney, Miller County lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana ____________ Submitted: January 20, 2016 Filed: January 26, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Vincent M. Cooper appeals after the district court1 dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denied his motions for appointment of counsel and for leave 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 15-2183 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2016 Entry ID: 4359554 to amend his complaint. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Cooper’s complaint sought postconviction access to DNA testing of certain evidence used at his criminal trial. Upon de novo review, this court concludes that the dismissal was proper. See Dist. Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 69, 72-75 (2009) (discussing contours of substantive and procedural due process rights related to postconviction access to DNA testing); Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (grant of motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cooper’s motions. See Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to denial of motion for appointment of counsel; discussing relevant factors); Joshi v. St. Luke’s Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 555, 557-58 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to denial of motion for leave to amend complaint; denial may be justified by futility of amendment). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 15-2183 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2016 Entry ID: 4359554

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?