Timothy Seeboth v. Cliff Allenby

In this habeas case, Petitioner Timothy Seeboth claims that California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”), Cal. Welf. & InstCode §§ 6600-6609.3, is unconstitutional on its face. Specifically, he asserts that the absence of a provision setting forth a time within which to hold a trial extending the term of his commitment denies him equal protection of the laws because, under California law, other civilly committed, persons have a statutory right to a recommitment trial within a specified period. The state courts and the district court denied relief. Because the California state courts reasonably held that this aspect of the SVPA does not deprive Petitioner of equal protection of the laws, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. The SVPA and Other California Civil Commitment Laws

California has enacted a set of civil commitment statutes that are triggered only after criminal charges have been filed. Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1138 , 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584, 587 (1999).' The SVPA, which is one such statute, reflects the California legislature’s “concern over a select group of criminal offenders who are extremely dangerous as the result of…