FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD RONJE, No. 15-16125
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01589-LJO-JLT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
AUDREY KING; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Edward Ronje, who is civilly committed in California, appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from
his 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th
Cir. 2005). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Ronje’s action as barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success in Ronje’s action would
necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his SVPA civil commitment, and Ronje
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his commitment under the 2009
protocol had been invalidated. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 80-82 (2005)
(a prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred if success “would necessarily demonstrate the
invalidity of confinement or its duration[,]” unless “the conviction or sentence has
already been invalidated” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Huftile,
410 F.3d at 1139-41 (applying Heck to SVPA civil commitment). However, we
vacate the judgment to the extent that it dismissed the action with prejudice, and
remand for entry of dismissal without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa
Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (Heck dismissals are without prejudice).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend
after concluding that amendment would be futile. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of
Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and
explaining that a court may deny leave to amend when it would be futile).
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
2 15-16125