Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's 1983 civil-rights complaint for failure to show cause as to why the court should not dismiss the action as barred by the Heck doctrine or the statute of limitations, where the plaintiff claimed incompetency and due-process, 8th-amendment, and federal-jurisdiction violations

Question Presented where the Lower Court held a de novo determination that the 1983 complaint at issue, claiming constitutional violations, was plaintiffs failing to show cause as to why the court should not dismiss this action as barred by the heck Doctrine or the statute of limitations, not and that, as a result, it lacks subject jurisdiction to resolve the claim. The plaintiff has claimed incompetency in his 1983 civil rights complaint which would violate due process, a basic and fundamental principle, subjecting him to an 8th amendment violation in his incarceration from 1995 to 2013. A defendant's right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent is a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. where federal law creates a cause of action federal courts automatically have subject jurisdiction to hear the case. The plaintiff asserts, in a de nova determination, a district court's application of the law to the facts in arriving at its legal conclusions are based on federal law and the constitution. There is no statute of limitations when raising constitutional violations with a 1983 civil rights complaint. i Certificate of interested person and