CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-3603 JLS (PVC) Date: November 5, 2025 Title Larry E. Lyda v. State of California and Jayme Christofferson

Present: The Honorable Pedro V. Castillo, United States Magistrate Judge

Marlene Ramirez None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: None None

PROCEEDINGS: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff Larry E. Lyda, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint against the State of California and Jayme Christofferson Cebi, DO. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 5). He was committed to the California Department of State Hospitals by Sonoma County in case number SCR-751602-1 on December 21, 2023, and is currently housed at Atascadero State Hospital. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2; Dkt. No. 5 at 2). On January 15, 2025, Dr. Cebi opined that Plaintiff “has a mental defect, disease, or disorder and would be a danger to the health and safety of others, even while under supervision and treatment in the community.” (Dkt. No. 5 at 2). She recommended that Plaintiff not be released “on an outpatient basis at this time.” (Id. at 11). Plaintiff vaguely alleges First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5). He seeks “release[ ] from the Hospital with sanity restored.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 6). This Court, however, has no authority to invalidate a state court judgment or sentence, due to various considerations of the balance between state and federal courts. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,

, 415–16 (1923); Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994). Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks immediate release from his state CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-3603 JLS (PVC) Date: November 5, 2025 Title Larry E. Lyda v. State of California and Jayme Christofferson

hospital confinement, his remedy lies in a writ of habeas corpus, and not in a

civil rights suit. And he must first exhaust his claims in state court via a petition for postconviction relief before seeking federal habeas relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a response, within 28 days of the date of this Order, which explains why Plaintiff believes he has a viable civil rights claim. Alternatively, Plaintiff may request a voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal form is attached for Petitioner’s convenience. Petitioner is expressly warned that failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for his failure to prosecute and obey Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

00:00 Initials of Preparer mr