Is the 'Petitioner' entitled to [a] defense of [the] 'presumption of innocence' upon a State's assertion of 'future dangerous behavior' by purely mere 'speculation' a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment[s] of Due Process, and the standard of 'clear and convincing evidence', to maintain an 'indefinite civil commitment', fundamentally violate this Court's opinion developed under Foucha v Louisiana 504 US 71 (1992)?

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Wayne Nicolaison filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint in the Federal District Court of Minnesota. On Dec. 11, 2017 the Magistrate recommended dismissal without prejudice citing Heck v Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). “Because judgment in Nicolaison’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his commitment, Heck applies to bar his claim. [Doc. C] Nicolaison v Hennepin County; #17-4769 (JRT/DTS); On Jan. 29, 2018 the District Court upheld the Magistrate’s Recommendation [Doc. B] [And] the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Nicolaison v Hennepin County 18-2030 dated Sept. 17, arbitrarily refused to review this case stating: “It is so ordered by the court that the judgment of district court is summarily affirmed.” [Doc. A] Furthermore, in adding salt to the wound; the Appellate Court remanded the case back to the District Court to reverse its’ Order of /n Forma Pauperis and to assess payment of $505 to Petitioner for bringing the Appeal. Id. The question presented: Is the “Petitioner” entitled to [a] defense of [the] “oresumption of innocence” upon a State’s assertion of “future dangerous behavior ” by purely mere “speculation” a violation of the 5“ and 14° Amendment[s] of Due Process, and the standard of “clear and convincing evidence”, to maintain an “indefinite civil commitment”, fundamentally violate this Court’s opinion developed under Foucha v Louisiana 504 US 71 (1992)? 2