
    Javier CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy BACA, Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 07-55482.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 27, 2010.
    Javier Castillo, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    Lael R. Rubin, Esq., Office of the District Attorney, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Javier Castillo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition on abstention grounds under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Castillo challenges his detention under pending petitions to civilly commit him as a sexually violent predator. In particular, he contends that his detention in lieu of removal from the United States violates due process. The district court properly invoked Younger abstention because the civil commitment proceedings brought against Castillo are judicial in nature and implicate important state interests, and Castillo would have an adequate opportunity to litigate his federal claims during his state trial and post-trial proceedings. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 41, 91 S.Ct. 746; Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 976-78 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (discussing factors to be considered when determining whether Younger abstention applies).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . We sua sponte certify for appeal the issue of whether the district court's decision to invoke Younger abstention was proper, see Cooke v. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir.2010), because it appears that Castillo must obtain a certificate of appealability, see Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 825 (9th Cir.2009).
     