state court and it should be returned there because the platts can still pursue really both prospected really and nominal damages under sea law and in state courts a cannot pursue under federal law or in federal courts the state law claims turn on novel and complex questions of state law specific state specifically here is the interpretation of state statutes and these were wrote misleading term in this record well so i w seizure of the car but we do allege that the seizure for for fisher of the car which is different is it is a violation of our client's constitutional rights there was no grounds for forfeiture of the talking about or a judge that is correct you don't know how so then they didn't choose that he chose this other expediters but in terms of stepping back and saying where they denied  process they had the opportunity for a full seizure intake so then as to this other supposed with regard to the nd procedure and been fully disclose to them wrote on their their their document not uncontested the difficulty is in the complexity of trying if you're a pro se person as the plats were time trying to get that into court in the st place and as our complaint lays out here not only is it particularly confusing it is particularly confusing in navajo county where the mailing address for both the court and the prosecutor is the same address and also the prosecutors under state law have authority to call a claim a petition and vice versa more to the point or i don't think that creating an alternative of an unconstitutional process they chose not to use it and to go to something else i believe your i disagree with the word choice there i don't think it was their choice i think that's what they stumbled  into and all of these questions really go to i think the uncontested forfeiture process specifically so that deals with positive action one end for a year but there are other causes of action that don't turn on that particular issue and that's uncontested forfeiture process you file a petition with the prosecutor and then the prosecutor gets to make the choice whether to go for it if the prosecutor files an application performance your arizona law says not only are you precluded from intervening into the case but the government also has a lower burden of proof that it only need to show probable cause as opposed to balance of the evidence or now clear and convincing evidence in a contested or were a number of outright mistakes wrong things wrong facts that the state allege that under the uncontested forfeiture statutes as the state courts have interpreted them my clients were crew vented from contesting and so that's that's the underlying problem and while i like the district courts interpretation of the statue's treats were around this obvious constitutional problem that interpretation is in conflict with the way essentially because it dismissed all the defendants except for the two prosecutors said we could not see a prospect of relief in federal court for any claim because of moving us and then it dismissed the two prosecutors who were left in the case because we with regard to the state claims but let me know if you take hard enough i was able to figure that out but never really did say that your honor the the the district court dismissed the state law claims against them not because they're ninety three person various cases that basically there's no record in the various cases and there is an allegation want this was an incentive across the board in the various cases that the state relies on the record their alliance not  can pursue in state court both for nominal damages because of the district court's iranians to terminations of the notice of claim statutes but also potentially prospect of relief because the state courts are not bound by were correct as to either of their claims typically you would be able to collect nominal damage for the exposure to the concert on my leisure threaten their rights that threatened to do certain things but if it didn't happen it didn't play out a route you're all right and we agree that there's no injury because of the the car itself but that the law generally seems to be established that if you put in hearings that were suffered from a constitutional pains and if they were actually correct about that upon the merits they they would be able to collect their nominal damages for exposure to that constitutional violation even if it just is you taking  positions that are flawed and effective but that never actually going to get her implemented your honor i believe that's the state of the law that was not specifically what a gated but about that was our understanding that it's  neither standing for prospective or retrospective relief and that case you would remain and unless you were convinced that a remained was futile and so the district court did not have an opportunity to weigh in on that but if you certainly just reports with an arizona sometimes believe that the prospect that just issue ability requirements will be waived in state court is so remote that it's ultimately futile and they simply dismiss rather than remain and that is something to support never have an opportunity to consider certainly there's reasons to believe that might be futile you know certainly given some of the shenanigans that with the plots and gaged and the state court proceedings state courts might be particularly since so wave just issued realty requirements for them they al proclaiming that's correct your honor but the state court in the future and the forfeiture proceedings that proceeded against the current currency made some very enlightening findings including that the plots it's essentially conspired to concoct no less than five different potential cover stories to explain how he came up with thirty thousand in cash you know at least four of which would have to be false they actually went out of their issue notably both of those requests as to the issue came post loss and so you got the buying to contrary to a lot of wa that was an abuse of discretion to deny a post last request for certification or to prospective relief but nominal damages are a form of damages that the arizona supreme court would look as something subject to strict strict compliance i'd also point out though if you know if this court were to reverse on this issue then would be in a posture of the state law claims are back alive the wages have waived any argument the federal due process to purchase from state to process and then you'll be presented with the merits of the state's cross appeal reverse on either the nominal the images or the general ends of the issue you begin presented with claims for which a cross appeal would be highly relevant i think if you had across the p o based on the state constitution w but i also represented all of the member agencies that make up the task force and that creates an interesting proposition and end up itself but quite often there are men to come play actually alleges the supposedly make up the task force subject to liability for what are the best course does i'm sorry your honor i heard you to say that if there are not but i thought there would be something know and i agree with the district court the district court dismissed out of state claims when they did that there was a federal claim by the time a rematch was requested there was a federal claim in the state claim to rebound by the time a clarification was asked or  would have looked at it and considered whether to to oppose it and the judge would have decided on it that evidence that if that's the only thing that's wrong here we were i don't know your honor i actually haven't you know human there's no interest to that question but what i can tell you is are you saying the task force or no member the test force can be sued well i'm saying that they you know there or the county the district court noted you actually did a latch that any law enforcement personnel of the county or any of the task force members has forced agencies actually committed a constitutional w before you decide in their hands well i don't know i agree with that procedural way but but mr hour but isn't it clear that it that public defense of the prosecutors are the ones you picked to pick up the defective procedure rather than the other procedure which would lead to any issues so isn't it clear that they're the proper defendants in this case i think that the district court concluded about and i agree with that and i think the b so to go with your hypothetical and i have to create a construct here that doesn't apply to this tapes and i want to make sure that that's clear so if it would say that you had an officer who was simply  are part of a policy practice or custom of a general municipality county city or state then you can raise a claim there but you never crossed that threshold in this case and in fact who become the title holder of the vehicle when it's forfeited i don't know the answer that question my belief that you don't know my belief is that stole the money goes into a general fund that's administered by the well in this case who became the title pursue damages against officials named in their official capacity except under federal law except up to date said they're not ninety three persons but ninety three persons has nothing to do with the state law claims and for that reason we can pursue damages nominal damages against state officials in their official capacity just as we could under state law against government government entity self including  seized in the name of the task force and we know that because defendant more designated them as the season agency in the notice of pending for a juror and that was the agency that the platts had to give notice to either their position or their claim and so it is the task force that is the seizing agency here for purposes of orbiter and that is the reason that we can sue the task force or as your honor he morgan what is the claim against the past fall here or the the car was seized but it was not ultimately forfeited more try to forfeit the car we got involved in this a proceeding and then the government voluntarily gave the car back all he and violated your rights in connection with that for a future decision they seized of the car for forfeiture because they have a profit incentive to seize cars for a church and then to forfeit them because under state would have to be somebody but for purposes of prospect of relief which is how this case started it makes a difference as to who is bound by a court's order if the task force itself is not bound by the courts or if it's only the prosecutors in their official capacity then there's and so at a minimum we can pursue that for nominal damages we could also to pursue the the biased prosecutors as adjudicators claims here because the district court's interpretation of the statutes to avoid that question is sadly maybe correct maybe incorrect it certainly novel and it's in its it conflicts with the other district court decision and cops and with other state law decisions and