Davenport

MEMORANDUM **

William Davenport appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We will consider all the issues raised in Davenport’s opening brief.

Davenport contends that the state trial court employed the wrong standard when it found probable cause to bind him over for trial as a sexually violent predator (“SVP”). The district court properly declined to address this issue so as not to interfere with ongoing state proceedings. *772 See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). The civil commitment proceedings brought against Davenport are judicial in nature and implicate important state interests, and Davenport would have an adequate opportunity to litigate his federal claims during his state trial and post-trial proceedings. Id. at 43 ; see also Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir.1972) (per curiam) (“[Ojnly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state…