ALFONSO MOUZON V. PAM AHLIN, No. 14-16261 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFONSO MOUZON, No. 14-16261 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00143-GSA v. MEMORANDUM* PAM AHLIN, Ex-Executive Director of Coalinga State Hospital; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted April 7, 2015*** Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. California civil detainee Alfonso Mouzon appeals pro se from the district * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** Mouzon consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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 Mouzon’s claim for prospective injunctive relief because he failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the SVPA’s postcommitment 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 (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 2 14-16261 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. 3 14-16261

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.