Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01737/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01737-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL TREBAS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DeBRUIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01737-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY 

HECK V. HUMPHRY, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) 

(Doc. 1)

30-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Daniel Trebas, a civil detainee complains that while he was held in the Fresno 

County Jail during recommitment proceedings (for approximately 20 months) he was not 

provided access to “mental health treatment programs needed for plaintiff to avoid additional 

prolonged involuntary civil commitment; thereby subjecting plaintiff to loss of enjoyment of life, 

liberty and property without equal protection under the due process clauses of the state and 

federal constitutions.” (Doc. 1, p. 7.) Plaintiff clearly challenges the basis of the forensic reports 

upon which his recommitment was based which indicate that he had not successfully completed 

the requisite treatment, alleging that his lack of access to medical treatment in the Fresno County 

Jail prevented him from doing so. 

When one challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a constitutional 

challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas 

corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:15-cv-01737-JLT Document 12 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an allegedly 

unconstitutional confinement, "a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has 

been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal 

authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a 

writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). "A 

claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so 

invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983." Id. at 488. 

The complaint does not contain any allegations to show that Plaintiff's recommitment has 

been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of habeas corpus. 

Accordingly, within 30 days from the date of service of this order the Court ORDERS

Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed as barred by Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal 

of this action, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01737-JLT Document 12 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 2