Page v. Finnberg

286 F. App'x 499

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Sammy L. Page, a California state civil detainee, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against two clinical psychologists whose professional evaluations led to his commitment as a sexually violent predator under California law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Huf-tile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Page’s action seeking prospective relief for failure to state a claim, because such relief was not available under the facts of this case. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (explaining that a plaintiff in a section 1983 claim for prospective relief must “meet the usual requirements for injunc-tive relief’); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 502, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974) (explaining that “the inadequacy of remedies at law” is a prerequisite to the issuance of equitable relief, and noting that federal habeas relief may become an adequate remedy where future wrongful prosecution is feared); Huftile, 410 F.3d at 1141-42 (noting that habeas relief was available to a California sexually violent predator challenging his civil commitment).

We deny all pending motions.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

**

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