Barnes v. Hennepin County District Attorney's Office , 364 F. App'x 301 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 09-2458
    ___________
    DeAndre Jerome Barnes,                  *
    *
    Appellant,                *
    *
    v.                                *   Appeal from the United States
    *   District Court for the
    Hennepin County District Attorney’s     *   District of Minnesota.
    Office; Mike Freeman, in his individual *
    and official capacities as County       *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    Attorney; Robert J. Streitz, in his     *
    individual and official capacities as   *
    Assistant County Attorney,              *
    *
    Appellees.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: February 2, 2010
    Filed: February 5, 2010
    ___________
    Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Minnesota inmate DeAndre Barnes (Barnes) appeals the district court’s1
    dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Hennepin County
    District Attorney’s Office and two of its prosecutors (defendants) for allegedly
    violating his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 
    373 U.S. 83
    (1963), by
    refusing to provide him with post-conviction access to witness statements. The
    district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding Barnes had failed to
    state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On appeal, Barnes argues the district
    court erred in dismissing his due process claim and abused its discretion in denying
    his motion for appointment of counsel. In addition, he attempts for the first time to
    articulate claims under the First, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, and requests a refund
    of his filing fees.
    Upon careful de novo review, see Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 
    517 F.3d 544
    , 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review), we find the district court did not
    err in concluding Barnes had failed to state a due process claim. See Dist. Attorney’s
    Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. __, 
    129 S. Ct. 2308
    , 2320
    (2009) (“Osborne’s right to due process is not parallel to a trial right, but rather must
    be analyzed in light of the fact that he has already been found guilty at a fair trial, and
    has only a limited interest in postconviction relief. Brady is the wrong framework.”).
    We further hold the district court did not err in concluding Barnes’s claims under the
    First, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments described no conduct by defendants that violated
    the rights secured by these constitutional provisions, and thus Barnes failed to state
    a claim as to each. See Gordon v. Hansen, 
    168 F.3d 1109
    , 1113 (8th Cir. 1999) (per
    curiam) (explaining, for a § 1983 claim to succeed, the plaintiff must show a causal
    relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the deprivation of a constitutional
    right). Finally, we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
    Barnes’s motion for appointment of counsel, see McCall v. Benson, 
    114 F.3d 754
    , 756
    1
    The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Arthur J.
    Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
    -2-
    (8th Cir. 1997) (stating the standard of review and the factors to evaluate in
    determining the need for appointment of counsel), and we lack authority to refund
    Barnes’s filing fees, cf. Porter v. Dept. of Treasury, 
    564 F.3d 176
    , 180 (3d Cir. 2009)
    (declaring an appellate court has no authority to waive in forma pauperis fees).
    We affirm.
    ______________________________
    -3-