Manse Sullivan v. Pam Ahlin

Ninth Circuit

Manse Sullivan v. Pam Ahlin

606 F. App'x 410

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 1, 2015

Docket14-16245

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 606 F. App'x 410 (Manse Sullivan v. Pam Ahlin) 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

Manse Sullivan v. Pam Ahlin, 606 F. App'x 410 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

California civil detainee Manse Sullivan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his civil confinement as a sexually violent predator under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sullivan’s action because Sullivan failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the *411 SVPA’s post-commitment procedures deprived him of due process. See Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 904 (9th Cir.1993) (elements of a § 1983 procedural due process claim); see also Cal. Welf: & Inst.Code § 6608(a) (“A person who has been committed as a sexually violent predator shall be permitted to petition the court for conditional release with or without the recommendation or concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals.”); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356-57, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (rejecting due process challenge in sexually violent predator context).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend after concluding that amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be given unless amendment would be futile).

We do not consider Sullivan’s contention regarding the Ex Post Facto clause because it was not raised below. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Sullivan’s request for judicial notice, filed on May 1, 2015, is granted.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition'is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

California civil detainee Manse Sullivan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his civil confinement as a sexually violent predator under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sullivan’s action because Sullivan failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the *411 SVPA’s post-commitment procedures deprived him of due process. See Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 904 (9th Cir.1993) (elements of a § 1983 procedural due process claim); see also Cal. Welf: & Inst.Code § 6608(a) (“A person who has been committed as a sexually violent predator shall be permitted to petition the court for conditional release with or without the recommendation or concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals.”); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356-57, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (rejecting due process challenge in sexually violent predator context).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend after concluding that amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be given unless amendment would be futile).

We do not consider Sullivan’s contention regarding the Ex Post Facto clause because it was not raised below. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Sullivan’s request for judicial notice, filed on May 1, 2015, is granted.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition'is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 F. App'x 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manse-sullivan-v-pam-ahlin-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack