Timothy Seeboth v. Cliff Allenby
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10252
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Timothy Seeboth was civilly committed under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) after multiple convictions for sexual offenses; a 2005 petition to extend his commitment resulted in a recommitment trial held in 2010 and an indefinite commitment.
- The SVPA (as applied to petitions after Proposition 83, 2006) authorizes indeterminate commitment for persons convicted of sexually violent offenses and diagnosed with a mental disorder making future sexual violence likely.
- Other California commitment schemes (MDO and NGI statutes) include explicit timing provisions requiring recommitment trials to commence within a specified period before an inmate’s release; the SVPA contains no comparable timing provision for recommitment trials at issue here.
- Seeboth filed state habeas petitions arguing the absence of an SVPA timing provision violated equal protection because similarly situated committed persons (MDOs, NGIs) receive statutory timing protections; state courts denied relief and the California Supreme Court summarily denied citing Duvall.
- The federal district court denied Seeboth’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition; the Ninth Circuit reviewed under AEDPA deference and affirmed, concluding the state courts reasonably found no equal protection violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Seeboth) | Defendant's Argument (Allenby/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the absence of a statutory timing provision in the SVPA violates Equal Protection | SVPA is facially unconstitutional because it denies a timing-right that MDOs/NGIs have, treating similarly situated committed persons differently | State contends SVPs are not similarly situated to MDOs/NGIs; the legislature rationally may treat sexually violent offenders differently and need not provide the same timing rule | Court held the state courts reasonably concluded SVPs are not similarly situated and upheld the law under rational-basis review; affirmed denial of habeas relief |
| Applicable standard of review on habeas (which state decision to review) | Seeboth argued ambiguous state-court denials required de novo federal review | State and panel treated the Superior Court and California Supreme Court rulings as reaching the merits | Court determined the California Supreme Court’s citation to Duvall signaled a merits disposition and reviewed under AEDPA deference |
| Level of constitutional scrutiny for equal protection challenge to civil commitment statutes | Seeboth argued civil commitment implicates a fundamental right warranting heightened scrutiny | State argued rational-basis review is permissible; Supreme Court precedent is not clearly settled to require heightened scrutiny | Court held it was reasonable for state courts to apply rational-basis review (or a rational-basis inquiry) and AEDPA bars relief absent objective unreasonableness |
| Whether Baxstrom requires identical procedural rights across commitment categories | Seeboth relied on Baxstrom to argue the state cannot give timing rights to some committed groups and withhold them from others | State distinguished Baxstrom as addressing denial of jury trial at commitment for one group, not timing distinctions among groups who all receive trials | Court held Baxstrom was not unreasonably applied by state courts; distinction between groups and procedural differences permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (civil commitment is a significant deprivation of liberty)
- Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107 (1966) (state may not deny procedural right afforded to some committed persons to others when no rational basis exists)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (upholding civil commitment statute for sexually violent predators as applied to a narrow class of dangerous individuals)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standard: federal habeas relief available only where state-court decision is objectively unreasonable)
- Curiel v. Miller, 780 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2015) (treatment of summary denials and identifying last reasoned state decision)
- Thielman v. Leean, 282 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2002) (reasonableness of treating sexually violent offenders as qualitatively more dangerous)
- People v. McKee, 223 P.3d 566 (Cal. 2010) (California Supreme Court discussion of SVPA procedural protections)