Daniel James Trebas v. Robert Knapp;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL JAMES TREBAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT KNAPP; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-55594
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-04809-FMC-
PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Daniel James Trebas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional
rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Huftile
v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-55594 2
The district court properly dismissed Trebas’s claims concerning
defendants’ conduct in connection with his civil commitment and recommitment
proceedings, because success on those claims would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his commitment. See id. at 1139-40.
The district court properly dismissed Trebas’s claims of inadequate medical
treatment, because they fail to state a claim under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-25 (1982).
Trebas’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --