Alfonso MOUZON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pam AHLIN, Ex-Executive Director of Coalinga State Hospital; et al., Defendants-Appellees, 599 F. App'x 772

MEMORANDUM California civil detainee Alfonso Mouzon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his civil confinement under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2013). We affirm.

The district properly dismissed Mouz-on’s claim for prospective injunctive relief because he failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the 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) (setting forth 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.”).

Dismissal of Mouzon’s claims for damages and declaratory relief was proper because a judgment in Mouzon’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his SVPA civil commitment. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (§ 1983 claims that necessarily challenge the fact or duration of confinement are barred unless the conviction or sentence has been invalidated); Huftile, 410 F.3d at 1139-41, 1142 (applying Heck to civilly committed sex offenders and noting that a dismissal under Heck is without prejudice).

We do not consider Mouzon’s ex post facto argument because it was not properly raised below. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as- provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.