Is the 'Petitioner' entitled to [a] defense of [the] 'presumption of innocence' upon a State's assertion of 'future dangerous behavior' via pure 'speculation'; as a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment[s] of Due Process standard, fundamentally violate this Court's opinion developed under Foucha v Louisiana 504 US 71 (1992) and/or Kingsley v Hendrickson et.al.,576 US __, (2015)?

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Luis A. Serna filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint in the Federal District Court of Minnesota. On January 23 , 2018 the Magistrate recommended dismissal without prejudice citing Heck v Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). “Because judgment in Serna’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his commitment, . Heck applies to bar his claim. Serna v Hennepin County; 17-5221 (PAM/LIB) [Doc. C] On March 23, 2018 the District Court upheld the Magistrate’s Recommendation [Doc. B] [And] the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Serna v Hennepin County 18-1804 . dated October 25, 2018 denied review this case. [Doc. A] The question presented: Is the “Petitioner” entitled to [a] defense of [the] “presumption of innocence” upon a State’s assertion of “future dangerous behavior ” via pure “speculation”; as a violation of the 5" and 14” Amendment[s] of Due Process standard, fundamentally violate this Court’s opinion developed under Foucha v Louisiana 504 US 71 (1992) and/or Kingsley v Hendrickson et.al.,576 US __, (2015)? 2