Seeboth v. Mayberg, 659 F.3d 945

Seeboth was convicted nine times for crimes involving deviant sexual acts with children and was first found an SVP in 1997 under the SVPA.
He was held for consecutive two-year terms from 1997 to 2005, which are not challenged here.
In May 2005, a petition was filed to extend Seeboth’s commitment beyond the 2003-05 term while he remained in custody.
Proposition 83, enacted in 2006, changed SVP commitments to an indeterminate term; California courts held pending two-year petitions could be treated as indefinite-term petitions.
When Seeboth was finally tried in September 2010, the trial court ordered an indefinite commitment after findings he remained an SVP.
Seeboth’s federal habeas petition was denied, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot because the ongoing indeterminate commitment derived from a validly commenced proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the appeal moot due to indeterminate-term commitment?	Seeboth contends ongoing confinement without timely trial violates due process.	The commitment is indeterminate but based on a valid, properly commenced proceeding; the relief sought (release) is unavailable.	Yes; appeal dismissed as moot.

People v. Badura, 95 Cal. App. 4th 1218 (2002) (recommitment petition must be filed while in lawful custody)
Jackson v. Cal. Dep't of Mental Health, 399 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2005) (each SVPA confinement term requires a fresh proceeding and new finding)
Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149 (1996) (per curiam dismissal for mootness when no effectual relief is possible)