Jones

MEMORANDUM **

Oscar W. Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his *647 commitment as a sexually violent predator. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258, and we affirm.

Jones’s February 2, 2008, and April 28, 2008, motions for judicial notice are granted.

Jones contends that the state court lacked jurisdiction under California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6601 because the commitment proceedings were initiated when he was neither serving a determinate sentence nor in custody following the revocation of parole. Whether the court lacked jurisdiction is a matter of state law that has been resolved against Jones in state court. This court is bound by a state court’s interpretation of state law. See Hubbart v. Knapp, 379 F.3d 773, 779-80 (9th Cir.2004). Although Jones contends that his due process rights were violated by the alleged lack of jurisdiction, he cannot “transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process.” See Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir.1996).

Jones also contends that his first attorney was constitutionally ineffective…