N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff-Appe lle e , v. DONALD JAY STR

EIC H, De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30171

D.C . No. 3:05-c r-05247-R B L-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B . Le ighton, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

7, 2015 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : NGUYEN a

nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s , a nd C A R NEY, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL E D JUL 13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim o usly c onc l ude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honora

ble C orm a c J. C arne y , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Dona ld Ja

y Stre ic h a

p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his post-sente nc ing m otion to a m e nd the pre se nte nc e re port (“ PSR ” ), whic h wa s pre p are d by

the probation offic e following Stre ic h’ s c o nvic tion for se xua l a buse of a m inor. Stre ic h se e ks to re m ove from the PSR c e rta in de ta ils of his prior sexua l a buse o f othe rs tha

t he a d m itte d a s a

juve nile during psy c hose xua l tre at m e nt a fte r re c e iving a

prose c utor’ s gra

nt of im m unity . Stre ic h file d his m otion a fte r the gove rnm e nt file d a

pe tition in the

Ea ste rn Distric t of North C a rolina se e king to c om m it him a s a

se xua lly da

n ge rous pe rson pursua

nt to theAda

m W a lsh Ac t, 18 U.S.C . § 4248. Afte r the North C arolina distric t c ourt e nte re d

a judgm e nt ruling that Stre ic h wa s not a

se xua lly da

nge rous pe rson re quiring c ivil c om m itm e nt, the distric t c o urt de nie d Stre ic h’ s m otion a s m oot. This C ourt re vie ws a distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination of m ootne ss de novo. A n ahe i m Me m’l Hosp. v . Shalala , 130 F.3d 845, 849 (9th C ir. 1997). W e a ffirm . A fe d e ra l c o urt doe s not ha ve jurisdic tion to rule

on a n issueif a

n e ve nt oc c urs during thepe nde n c y of litiga t ion tha t re nde rs the issue m oot. GTE C al., Inc . v . Fe d. C

ommc ’ns C

omm’n , 39 F.3d 940, 945 (9th C ir. 1994). A c a se is m oote d if the re is no longer an injury to be re dre sse d. De me r

y v . Arpaio , 378 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th C ir. 2004); se ealso N w . Env tl. De

f. C tr. v . Gordon , 849 F.2d

21241, 1244 (9th C ir. 1988) (“ The ba sic que stion in de te rm ining m o otne ss is

whe the r the re is a pre se nt c ontrove rsy a s to whic h e ffe c tive re lie f c an be grante d.” ). The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Stre ic h’ s m otion a s m oot. Stre ic h sought to strike

the psy c hose xua l tre atm e nt inform ation from the PSR so tha t it would not be

c onside re d by

the North C arolina

distric t c ourt in thethe n-pe nding c ivil c om m itm e nt proc e e ding. B y

the tim e the distric t c ourt he ard the m o tion, howe v e r, the North C arolina distric t c ourt ha d a l re a dy

rule d in Stre ic h’ s favor a n d de nie d the c ivil c om

m itm e nt pe tition. Sinc e Stre ic h ne ithe r suffe re d nor wa s be ing thre ate ne d with theinjury of c ivil c om

m i tm e nt ba se d on thePSR , the distric t c ourt c ould not provide

him any m e an ingful re lie f and, c onse que ntly , Stre i c h’ s m otion wa s m o ot. Se eC

tr. for Biological Div e rsity v . Lohn , 511 F.3d 960, 965–66 (9th C ir. 2007) (e nvironm e nta l orga niz ation’ s re que st for orde r re quiring fe de ra l a ge nc y to list the Southe rn R e side nt kille r wha l e a s e nda nge re d wa s m o ote d by

a ge n c y ’ s subse q ue nt issua nc e of fina l rule listing the wha le a s a

n e nda nge re d spe c ie s). Stre ic h a sse rts tha

t the distric t

c ourt re ta ine d jurisdic tion to rule on his m otion be c a

use of two e xc e p tions to the m o otne ss doc trine : (1) c olla te ra l le ga l c onse q ue nc e s, a n d (2) wrongs c a

pa ble of re pe tition, y e t e va ding re vie w. Se e Sibron v . N

e w York, 392 U.S. 40, 53–58 (1968) (holding tha t the c olla te ra l c onse q ue nc e s e x c e ption a

pplie d be c a

use , a lthough the

de fe nda nts’ prim ary

injury 3of inc arc e ration ha d e xpire d, the ir c ha lle nge to the i r c onvic t ions wa s not m oot

be c a use se c onda

ry injurie s, or c olla

te ra l c onse q

ue nc e s, re sulting from

the ir c onvic tions re m a ine d); Spe nc e r v . K e mna , 523 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1998) (de c lining to a pply the “ c a pa ble -of-re pe tition”e x c e ption whe n the re wa s no re a sona ble e xpe c tation tha

t the sa m e c om pla ining pa

rty would be subje c t to thesa m e injury a ga in a nd whe n the injury wa s not so lim ite d in dura

tion suc h tha t it is like l y a lwa y s to be c om e m oot be fore litiga tion is c om

ple te d). Ne i the r of the se e xc e ptions, howeve r, a

pply he re . The c olla

t e ra l le g a l c onse q

ue n c e s e xc e ption doe s not a pply be c a use Stre ic h ha s not suffe re d a ny se c onda ry or c olla te ra l ha rm s from a c ourt re ly ing on thepsy c hose xua l tre atm e nt inform ation in the PSR . Se eC tr. for Biologic al Div e rsity , 511 F.3d a t 965 (de c lining to a

pply the c olla te ra l le ga l c onse q ue nc e s e x c e ption whe re the a lle ge d c olla te ra l c onse que nc e s we re only c onje c tura l). The “ wrongs c a pa ble of re pe tition y e t e va ding re vie w ” e xc e p tion a lso doe s not a

pply be c a use Stre ic h wa s ne ve r c ivilly c o m m itte d a nd, the re fore , did not suffe r any

wrong or injury

in the first insta

nc e . Se e , e . g. , Murphy

v . Hunt , 455 U.S. 478, 482–84 (1982) (de c lining to a pply e xc e ption e ve n whe n the pla intiff ha d suffe re d a n initial injury be c a

use the possibility

of re c urring injury wa s

4spe c ulative ). 1 And should the gove rnm e nt file anothe r pe tition to c ivilly c om m it him in the future , Stre ic h

will ha ve am ple opportunity

to fully litiga te his obje c tion to tha t c o urt’ s c onside rat ion of thepsy c h ose xua l tre at m e nt inform ation in the

PSR in the jurisdic tion in whic h suc h c i vil c o m

m itm e nt pe tition is file d. Se eVite k v . J one s , 445 U.S. 480, 491 (1980) (holding tha t proc e dura l due proc e ss doe s gua rante e c e rta in prote c tions to c ivil c o m m itm e nt re sponde nts); 18 U.S.C . § 4247(d) (providing the

c ivil c om m itm e nt re sponde nt with rep re se ntat ion by c ounse l, a nd a n opportunity

to te stify , pre se nt e vide n c e , subpoe na witne sse s, a

nd c onfront a

nd c ross-e xam ine witne sse s who a ppe ar at the he a

ring). Fina lly , we have no jurisdic tion to a ddre ss Stre ic h’ s c ha lle nge to the use of the p sy c hose xua l tre atm e nt inform ation in the PSR in c o nne c tion with a

ny subse q ue nt c ivil c o m

m itm e nt or supe rvise d re le a se proc e e ding. Any future injury that Strie c h m ight suffe r in this re ga rd is sim ply not ripe now. It is a

“ c l a ssic e xam ple of a ‘ c ontinge nt future e ve nt’ tha t ‘ m ay not ha p p e n at a ll.’ ” Unite d State s v . Stre ic h , 560 F.3d 926, 932 (9th C ir.), c e rt. de nie d , 558 U.S. 920 (2009); se ealso

1 To the e xte nt Stre ic h a

rgue s tha t he will suffe r a

“ re c urring” injury of c i vil c om m itm e nt, suc h a

n injury is highly unlike ly in the a bse n c e of a dditional wrongful be havior by

Stre ic h. W e have pre viously obse rve d tha

t “ [c ] ourts a

re re luc ta nt to invoke

this doc t rine whe n the possibility

of re c urre nc e for the a

p pe lla nt de pe nds upon his own wrongdoing.” Re ime rs v . Ore gon , 863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th C ir. 1988) (de c lining to a pply e xc e ption whe re the possibility of re c urre nc e wa s de pe nde nt on the c om

m ission of a

nothe r c rim e by the pla intiff). 5Unite d

State s v . Linare

s , 921 F.2d 841, 843–44 (9th C i r. 1990) (holding tha t the de fe nda nt la c ke d sta

nding to c ha lle nge a hy

pothe tic a l re voc ation tha

t m ay ne ve r oc c ur). Stre ic h m

ust wa i t to c ha lle nge the use of the psy c hose xua l tre atm e nt inform at ion in thePSR

in a ny suc h le ga l proc e e ding whe n, if e ve r, tha t proc e e ding is initia te d a ga inst him . AFFIRM E D.

6