Randy Lee Soderstrom v. TONY RACKAUCKAS, District Attorney;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Accordingly, Soderstrom’s request for
publication is denied.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANDY LEE SODERSTROM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TONY RACKAUCKAS, District
Attorney; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-56976
D.C. No. 8:08-cv-00309-PA-SS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Randy Lee Soderstrom, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-56976 2
a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Soderstrom’s action because
Soderstrom failed to state a viable due process claim for access to the DNA
evidence at issue. See Dist. Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v.
Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 2320 (2009) (“Federal courts may upset a State’s
postconviction relief procedures only if they are fundamentally inadequate to
vindicate the substantive rights provided.”).
Soderstrom’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Soderstrom’s request for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --