Trebian v. NH State Prison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jerod Trebian
v. Case No. 24-cv-94-JL-AJ
New Hampshire State Prison
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented plaintiff Jerod Trebian, who is
incarcerated at the New Hampshire State Prison for Men in
Concord, New Hampshire, seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. No. 1.1 In his Petition, Mr. Trebian
alleges that while he was detained pretrial, his attorney failed
to press his speedy trial rights, and delayed moving for a bail
hearing for eight months. He also alleges he was denied medical
treatment while in pretrial detention. The Petition is before
the undersigned Magistrate Judge for preliminary review pursuant
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (“§ 2254 Rules”)
and LR 4.3(d)(4).
1 Mr. Trebian also filed several letters with the court,
which are construed as addenda to the Petition. See Doc. Nos.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Collectively, the court will refer to
Document Nos. 1-7 as the “Petition” in this matter for all
purposes.
Case 1:24-cv-00094-JL-AJ Document 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 8

2
Preliminary Review Standard
The Court reviews petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
and, if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court, the judge must dismiss the petition.” § 2254
Rule 4. “Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any
habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face.”
McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). As Mr. Trebian is
representing himself in this matter, the court construes his
pleadings liberally. See Dutil v. Murphy, 550 F.3d 154, 158
(1st Cir. 2008).
Background
Mr. Trebian filed his Petition in this court while he was
in pretrial detention, awaiting trial in a criminal case pending
in the New Hampshire Superior Court, in State v. Trebian, No.
212-2021-CR-324 (N.H. Super. Ct., Carroll Cty.). The State
initially charged Mr. Trebian with stalking/domestic violence,
criminal threatening with a deadly weapon, second degree
assault, aggravated felonious sexual assault, witness tampering,
and simple assault.2 A jury trial was held between June 4, 2024
and June 13, 2024, and Mr. Trebian was convicted of criminal
2 In total, the State brought twenty-five charges against
Mr. Trebian but dismissed eleven charges prior to trial.
Case 1:24-cv-00094-JL-AJ Document 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 8

3
charges. As of the date of this Order, Mr. Trebian has not been
sentenced.
In February 2025, Mr. Trebian filed a motion for a new
trial and a motion to vacate his convictions/motion for new
trial. The trial court held a hearing on those motions on
December 11, 2025. That court took the matter under advisement
and has not yet rendered a decision. On December 2, 2025, Mr.
Trebian filed a supplement to his motions in the Superior Court.
In his Petition here, Mr. Trebian challenges several
aspects of his pretrial detention, including that the trial
court violated his right to a speedy trial and denied him a bail
hearing. Mr. Trebian also asserts that his trial counsel
delayed requesting a bail hearing for eight months, and then
only submitted a single-paragraph motion which was not
effective.
Finally, Mr. Trebian argues that he was denied medical care
while incarcerated. Doc. No. 1 at 7. Specifically, he claims
that after breaking his foot and heel the night he was arrested
in November 2021, he was denied surgery for two years. Id. He
also claims that he broke three fingers in June 2022 and never
received the necessary medical treatment. Id.
Case 1:24-cv-00094-JL-AJ Document 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 8

4
Claims
Mr. Trebian asserts the following claims:
1. Mr. Trebian was denied his right to a speedy trial because
his attorney refused to assert his speedy trial rights on
his behalf in the Superior Court;
2. The Superior Court denied Mr. Trebian a second bail hearing
after stating that he would be given such a hearing once he
produced evidence warranting reconsideration of his bail;
3. Mr. Trebian’s trial attorney unnecessarily delayed filing a
motion for a bail hearing for eight months, and the motion,
when filed, was ineffective; and
4. Mr. Trebian was denied adequate medical treatment for two
years after breaking his foot in November 2021; and never
received medical treatment to heal the three fingers he
broke in June 2022.
Discussion
I. Claims 1, 2, and 3
A. Exhuastion
To be eligible for federal habeas relief, a petitioner must
show that he has exhausted the remedies available to him in the
state courts for those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1);
Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366, 378 (2022) (state prisoner
ordinarily satisfies requirement to exhaust available state
court remedies before seeking federal habeas relief “by raising
his federal claim before the state courts in accordance with
state procedures”); Coningford v. Rhode Island, 640 F.3d 478,
482 (1st Cir. 2011) (“To achieve exhaustion, a habeas petitioner
Case 1:24-cv-00094-JL-AJ Document 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 8

5
bears a heavy burden to show that he fairly and recognizably
presented to the state courts the factual and legal bases of
[his] federal claim.” (alteration in original) (internal
quotations and citation omitted)).
“Generally speaking, a petitioner's failure to exhaust all
state remedies is fatal to the prosecution of a federal habeas
case.” Sanchez v. Roden, 753 F.3d 279, 294 (1st Cir. 2014)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A petitioner’s
remedies in New Hampshire are exhausted when the New Hampshire
Supreme Court has had an opportunity to rule on the claims. See
Lanigan v. Maloney, 853 F.2d 40, 42 (1st Cir. 1988).
In his Petition, Mr. Trebian states that he did not fully
exhaust the claims he asserts here in the state courts, in that
he did not appeal those claims to the New Hampshire Supreme
Court. See Doc. No. 1 at 2–3, 8–10; see also Gunter v. Maloney,
291 F.3d 74, 82 (1st Cir. 2002) (“[W]here the claim has not been
fairly presented on direct appeal . . . it should be fairly
presented to the state court through a motion for collateral
relief.”). Because Mr. Trebian failed to exhaust his habeas
claims in state court, the district judge should dismiss the
claims identified above as Claims 1–3.
Case 1:24-cv-00094-JL-AJ Document 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 8

6
II. Claim 4
In Claim 4, Mr. Trebian asserts a claim challenging the
conditions of his confinement as unconstitutional.
Specifically, he asserts that he has not received adequate
medical care for his serious medical needs during his pretrial
detention. Such a claim is not actionable in a § 2254 habeas
petition. Instead, such claims must be litigated in an action
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of Mr.
Trebian’s Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate medical care
during his pretrial detention.
In general, a civil rights action against state actors,
brought under § 1983, is the appropriate vehicle for challenging
a prisoner’s conditions of confinement. See Gonzalez-Fuentes v.
Molina, 607 F.3d 864, 873 (1st Cir. 2010); see also Nelson v.
Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“[C]laims that merely
challenge the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement . . . fall
outside of [the core of habeas corpus] and may be brought
pursuant to § 1983 in the first instance.”). Because Mr.
Trebian’s inadequate medical care claims are not properly
litigated in this § 2254 action, the district judge should
dismiss those claims from this case, without prejudice to Mr.
Trebian’s ability to litigate them in the new civil rights case
described below.
Case 1:24-cv-00094-JL-AJ Document 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 6 of 8

7
So that Mr. Trebian has the opportunity to litigate his
Fourteenth Amendment claim in a § 1983 action, without being
penalized by the passage of time since he initially filed his
habeas petition, the court will direct that a new § 1983 case be
opened using Mr. Trebian’s original filing date as the opening
date in that case in an Order issued simultaneously with this
Report and Recommendation. The claim in that case will be the
inadequate medical care claim identified above as Claim 4, which
Mr. Trebian asserted in Doc. No. 1.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the court:
1. Recommends that the district judge dismiss Claims 1–
3, as identified above; and
2. Recommends that the district judge dismiss Claim 4,
as identified above, without prejudice to Mr. Trebian
pursuing that claim in the new § 1983 case opened by
the Clerk’s Office, as set forth in the Order issued
simultaneously with this Report and Recommendation.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. Only those issues raised in the objection to this
Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the district
court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d
554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by such
objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See id. Failure to file
Case 1:24-cv-00094-JL-AJ Document 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 7 of 8

8
any objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court’s order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
January 20, 2026
cc: Jerod Trebian, pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00094-JL-AJ Document 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 8 of 8