argue that prison officials and friends on michael's fundamental right to access the court and due process rights when they interfered with his ability to respond in divorce proceedings the right to defend oneself in a legal proceeding is a central part of the liberties protected by our constitution this court should reverse the district court order and remain and for further proceedings because first michael has alleged plausible claims that federal officials violated his constitutional rights and second no immunity or lack of jurisdiction farce his claims against mr bacon and miss hill are in their individual and official capacities our law is the club there individuals that the first amendment right to petition the court includes the right to file other civil court of other civil actions in a court with a reasonable basis in law or fact in that case the court found that even if individuals who are in confinement due to criminal convictions still have the opportunity to access the court in civil proceedings similarly there is a fifth circuit case corpus versus a still who has recognized that right as well because individuals still have the opportunity to defend themself in a lawsuit in this case rebecca michael's former wife is the person that initiated the divorce proceedings he reserves the papers and he attempted tiresomely to go through his unit manager and even the compound attorney to attempt to respond to the legal proceedings in this case to no avail and i ask you this counsel i certainly agree with you that the facts are pretty compelling as far as what actually happened to reverse and remain michael's case the district court could similarly look at the special factors counseling hesitation in that case as well and what's different from michael's case from ziegler versus a bossy is that the rank of the officers these solve a case as well excuse me as as the long standing precedent of bounds versus smith wolf this is mcdonald and lewis versus casey most recently that found the prisoners to have a constitutional right to access the court is an implied cause of action against the officials in their official capacity now when michael filed his divorce when michael attempted to file his is complaint in pennsylvania court for divorce there a pro notary responded to unit manager has a lot of discretion i mean the policy says that they may allow this contact don't they have a lot of discretion terms of deciding whether or not the context would be made yes your honor and i it is a good policy for the prison officials to have that sort of discretion but this case unlike a case such as turner versus safley there is no paying a logical interest there was no security risk in affording michael the opportunity to respond to the divorce proceedings in this case similarly a general grant of discretion cannot absolve officials from liability and in this case the act of interference from miss hiller and mr bacon  prohibiting a prohibiting michael from being able to defend himself in a legal proceeding would be enough to warrant a remedy from this court and that would be either the injunctive relief from in against the individuals in their official claim in this case  michael has already attempted to appeal the divorce decree in this case and he would intend to do so as well in fact in pennsylvania court they have five years to file a motion to vacate or argue their case similarly and foreclosure proceedings where he lost the opportunity to fight for his real property they have also preserved the filing date for that case as well and those would be the damages that would michael would be seeking to pursue under that they thirty seven the approach the notary noted that the original notice of appeal was preserved in pennsylvania court and similarly in our in our briefing we've said we've provided me that the filing is on record in the pen in the court of pennsylvania your honor ok i understand what it what i'm wrestling with this as i understand that the court received the notice of appeal docket but the former spouse has not yet been served right yes your honor is all about correct ok so she hasn't been served and he's not a party doing the lawsuit right well she and she filed the initial  can try to set it aside and something certainly that what you want is for him to be able to pursue whatever remedies yes your honor we would like him to be able to provide have the opportunity to pursue those remedies provided that because of the active interference in this case he was not able to defend himself in the divorce proceedings and there were it's reasonable to infer that there were marital assets and involved in this case that was lost per the foreclosure on the relationship between the defendant the form state and the claim and in this case but for miss hiller's denial of michael's opportunity to respond in the divorce proceedings and serve rebecca he would have not had his claim he would not be pursuing this claim today on the defendant are excuse me the plaintiffs in that case was that they could move around and so presumably there was a policy concern as to whether or not they could sue them in any state in this case michael is going to remain in arizona and miss heller was aware that her actions would impact him there your honor i'm going to reserve the rest of my time for my co counsel thank you very much  the critical issue that can resolve this case cleanly on all levels is that of qualified immunity it asks was there clearly established law by the train court by the ninth circuit that would put these defendants on notice that their actions in applying a b o p s regulation that's been consistently up held by the courts with advice from legal counsel by following that regulation that they would be violating m rode out in their official capacity later on to use the form that did permit that to be crude but the reality is if he's able to plead equitable relieve you don't have a situation where there is qualified immunity right doesn't apply here that's true and if mr charles blow wanted to seek an official capacity action he could use the procedures available under the a p a s he wants to to get it in and defend a divorce proceeding out is challenging the regulation helping with that well as this court has previously suggested an action in an official capacity is really against the bureau of prisons not against these individual defendants and in that way there is that waiver of sovereign immunity in the ministry of procedures act which would allow him to pursue that action but here after the court he was pro se right yes that he would have to reclean the court granted dismisses claims with leave to amend and he filed three different amendments at times but his action was primarily seeking a bevan's right and the court construed it as a first amendment claim for right to petition the courts and that's that's where it left let's just say connection with his divorce action i would submit that it would not provide him with with the remedy in this much as the divorce decree has already been entered this is also a case i've heard that are pennsylvania laws of record that he attached excerpt thirty four refuse his filing that says that his motion to dismiss the divorce action is to not these other motions he made were denied it was not a simply a matter of she filed something he couldn't respond at all because of this service issue it considered his filings and denied them and then she was able to successfully get the divorce  i'm was it because he had served her or was there some other matter pertinent to pennsylvania law that was the basis of the denial the court did not explain in fall what its basis was but it tonight all of his motions and then went on to say in the future the parties cannot get a divorce to create without complying with these service matters but it didn't suggest that his motions were denied  in their criminal case they were able to serve the papers so those prior motions that he had filed had been served so there wouldn't have been an issue and any of it but the claim that he's making to have this divorce go away and to contest the divorce was effectively considered and rejected by the court irrespective of any service issue including the property issues the property issue  went up there was the lower court foreclosure and it went up on appeal the appeal was considered there's an opinion that cited two in the record and the later issue was that he filed a petition first cir antially to the supreme court of pennsylvania which is a discretionary court and then they noted a number of problems not just with service but also with the contents of the notice of peel and transcripts and whatnot and also serve his ex wife and to have issues related to his divorce such as property considered by the pennsylvania course isn't right that that is our opinion i mean also importantly out with regard to the property issues opponents have suggested that their marital assets that could have been distributed differently but that's also inconsistent with the sort of fundamental purpose of this case that he's appearing i s p and that he shouldn't be forced to serve people using his own dollars if it is an issue of marital assets that's that's kind of the issue he hasn't been able to serve a at least as to this post divorce action no he has not been able to serve her but those issues at the time that miss hill are considered the request he the divorce decree had already been entered and then add the b o p s officials all the more reason and qualified to mean you immunity they're faced with the situation where the divorce decree has already been entered these are co defendant these are people involved and you know sex offender management programs there's a number of legitimate pina logical objectives for why they should follow this regulation particularly after consulting with legal counsel who pointed them to government view this is in effect a collateral attack on the state judgment of divorce yes your honor and ultimately they point out this five year period to set aside judgment they would have to meet the very high standard for extra strength the fraud in that situation and as to the foreclosure action they would have to prove that he would have succeeded on a petition first so it would the intermediate court effectively the p r a also specifically provides for that injunctive relief for prisoners only be as as narrow and tailored as possible so proceeding in that manner would also require that the court condition that and confine that to really effectively give him any sort of rights but i submit there's also no constitutional is no allegation in this case your honor that they were acting with improper purposes or retaliating against them it's simply that the be or piece not required to affirmatively assist prisoners with surface and this is not a case involving conditions of confinement or a case involving a criminal appeal which most of the case law cited by a pilot's goes to that point this is specifically a civil action divorced from any  present behavior and indeed even in those cases civil rights cases it is the court which orders the marshals to do the service and not that the b o p s doing the service in those cases of the person we were calling thank you very much thank you well let's hear a rebuttal got a different person arguing now right we're going to give the students a little more time than we usually do here because we know this is an important participation so wel not revise their standards but let's talk about that injunction ok what exactly would the injunction say if you could write it to your satisfaction we would request that the injunction state that any unit managers not be able to forbid michael from serving papers on rebecca straw for any civil action that he may file ok so you think that this is that he was stopped and that was the problem i thought he had also an issue that he didn't have the money to affect the service or private persons right yes so i'm confused and you injunction i would say that the v o p officials should not stop him  you heard from your opposing counsel but he was already named in presumably served in the divorce action and it went forward under pennsylvania law so i guess if we did it your way and they didn't stop him they just stood out of the way how does that help him on what relief does that give to him we would offer you one that yes your honor we would also request that he be provided with a reasonable means to serve rebecca through the b o p s mailing system because they weren't ultimately trying to axiom case i was there jurisdiction in this case she specifically sent e mails to mr bacon knowing that she would be preventing michael from serving rebecca stross bell and therefore she targeted i understand that but the problem is you want to talk about specific personal jurisdiction how does that satisfy the constitutional requirements set forth by the supreme court and our court in connection with specific personal jurisdiction sending an email is not enough issue here and inconvenience for having the one we have to deal with how do you get jurisdiction over this b o p s official where is the specific personal jurisdiction under the constitution she mr bacon and not miss heller and she specifically sent an e mail to mr bacon to her bed michael sam quest bonding with rebecca questions by my colleague i think rules that thank you very much thanks especially to our last didn't have here is a very nice job by both of you you too of course but we thank you all the case just argued is submitted and we want you law its to know that when lose or draw we're very grateful for your participation and everybody that comes here to argue gives your client on the system an opportunity to deal with challenges one of the wonderful things about our system is we have due process that we don't have to fight out or our requirements in the street we can come to the court we can represent our ideas our issues and they get resolved in a peaceful manner and you're an important part of that process so good job all