affirmed the district court’s ruling in Alley v. Key, 431 F.Supp.2d 790 (W.D.Tenn.2006), that the petitioner, a death-row inmate, had no post-conviction constitutional right to biological evidence used against him at trial for purposes of DNA testing, and affirmed the resulting dismissal of the petitioner’s § 1983 complaint. Alley v. Key, No. 06-5552, 2006 WL 1313364 (6th Cir. May 14, 2006) (unpublished), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2973, - L.Ed.2d - (2006). The Sixth Circuit noted that "there exists no general constitutional right to post-judgment DNA testing,” and specifically rejected essentially the same due process and Brady claims asserted by Grayson here. Id. at *1-2. 8 . In Haney, the Fourth Circuit decided that post-conviction 10 P.3d 986, 995 (Alaska Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). The district court in Godschalk relied on
holding that no  1983 claim exists for injunctive relief to compel dna testing holding that there is no postconviction due process right to biological evidence for purposes of dna testing holding that there is no federal due process right to present new evidence of actual innocence such as dna testing holding that a claim seeking dna testing is cognizable under section 1983 holding that there is no due process right to appellate review