Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Hank Skinner's Petition to Allow Potentially-Exonerating DNA Testing

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the petition of death-row prisoner Hank Skinner who is demanding DNA testing that may exonerate him (see my previous posts here and here and here).

The general question that the court will decide is whether a convicted prisoner seeking access to biological evidence for DNA testing that may potentially prove his innocence may assert a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, or if such a claim is cognizable only under a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court's stay of execution, granted --inexplicably-- just one hour before Mr. Skinner was executed, will remain in effect until the case is decided.

Below is the "QUESTION PRESENTED" of Hank Skinner's petition in its entirety (the opening page of every petition for writ of certiorari contains a paragraph that concisely summarizes the issue to be decided):

For ten years, Henry W. Skinner has sought access to DNA testing the could prove him innocent of the murders that landed him on Death Row. After the Texas
courts arbitrarily turned back his diligent attempts to take advantage of state
statutes affording such relief, he sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. s. 1983 to vindicate his due process right to "fundamental fairness in the operation" of Texas's scheme. Dist. Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 2320 (2009). The district court dismissed Mr. Skinner's Section 1983 suit solely on the ground that his claim sounded only in habeas corpus, and the Fifth Circuit summarily affirmed.

The question presented is the same one the Court granted certiorari in Osborne to decide, but left unresolved: May a convicted prisoner seeking access to biological evidence for DNA testing assert that claim in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, or is such a claim cognizable only in a petition for writ of habeas corpus?

As Professor Rob Owen, counsel of record for Hank Skinner, points out in his statement (copied below), this is only a first step in a case where justice has long been delayed and denied:

We are pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Mr. Skinner's appeal. That decision represents the necessary first step to our eventually obtaining the DNA testing that Mr. Skinner has long sought. We look forward to the opportunity to persuade the Court that if a State official arbitrarily denies a prisoner access to evidence for DNA testing, the prisoner should be allowed to challenge that decision in a federal civil rights lawsuit.