
    Paul JENNINGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan AZIZIAN, Chief Psychologist at Coalinga State Hospital; Audrey King, Executive Director at Coalinga State Hospital, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15182
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 23, 2016
    Paul Jennings, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul Jennings 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 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district properly dismissed Jennings’s action because Jennings failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the SVPA’s post-commitment procedures in effect in 2013 deprived him of due process notwithstanding any denial of annual mental health evaluations. See Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth elements of a § 1988 procedural due process claim); see also Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6608(a) (2013) (“A person who has been committed as a sexually violent predator shall be permitted to petition the court for conditional release with or without the recommendation or concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals.”); id. § 6608(k) (2013) (“After a minimum of one year on conditional release, the committed person, with or without the recommendation or concurrence of the Director of State Hospitals, may petition the court for unconditional discharge”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Jennings’s contention regarding the magistrate judge.

•Jennings’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on March 25, 2016, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     