Huftile v. Vognsen

Ninth Circuit

Huftile v. Vognsen

140 F. App'x 760

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 5, 2005

DocketNo. 04-55525; D.C. No. CV-03-09395-AHS

StatusPublished

This text of 140 F. App'x 760 (Huftile v. Vognsen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huftile v. Vognsen, 140 F. App'x 760 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Michael Huftile, who is civilly committed pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Dr. Vognsen violated his constitutional rights while preparing an evaluative report used by the Sacramento Superior Court in Huftile’s civil commitment proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Huftile’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) because they implicate the validity of his continuing confinement. See Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-41 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Michael Huftile, who is civilly committed pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Dr. Vognsen violated his constitutional rights while preparing an evaluative report used by the Sacramento Superior Court in Huftile’s civil commitment proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Huftile’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) because they implicate the validity of his continuing confinement. See Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-41 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 F. App'x 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huftile-v-vognsen-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack