Phillip L. Harmon v. Dep’t of Mental Health

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PHILLIP L. HARMON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DEP’T OF MENTAL HEALTH,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-56712
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00911-AHS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Phillip L. Harmon appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
for lack of jurisdiction his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his
civil commitment under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 30 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56712 2
The district court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over Harmon’s petition because, at the time of his federal filing in this
case, Harmon was no longer “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court”
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488,
490-94 (1989) (per curiam). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction over the
petition as a statutory matter, we need not reach the issue of whether the petition
was moot. See United States v. Sandoval-Lopez, 122 F.3d 797, 802 n.9 (9th Cir.
1997) (“We avoid constitutional questions when an alternative basis for disposing
of the case presents itself.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --