Case Name: Michael HUFTILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack VOGNSEN, PHD, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-05
Citations: 140 F. App'x 760
Docket Number: No. 04-55525; D.C. No. CV-03-09395-AHS
Parties: Michael HUFTILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack VOGNSEN, PHD, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 760–761

Head Matter:
Michael HUFTILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack VOGNSEN, PHD, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-55525.
D.C. No. CV-03-09395-AHS.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
Decided Aug. 5, 2005.
Michael Huftile, Atascadero, CA, pro se.
Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael Huftile, who is civilly committed pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se the district court's judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Dr. Vognsen violated his constitutional rights while preparing an evaluative report used by the Sacramento Superior Court in Huftile's civil commitment proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Huftile's claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) because they implicate the validity of his continuing confinement. See Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-41 (9th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.