with the record in the briefs you have for me if i want to go over a few that highlight what is before the court in this matter and the first date is december twenty fourth one thousand nine hundred six when this action was first filed the reason that's significant  and he he was alleging violations of his constitutional rights at the prison the second significant date is on january nineteenth ninety nine almost well a little over two years later the plaintiff got transferred to prison and i own california called mule creek and he got transferred there because mule creek happens to be a higher security prison folsom those old prisons now are low security and he went the higher security prison because he had been convicted of possessing doe in folsom prison he got caught with some crank or some kind of dope anyway he got a more severe sentence one from the higher security prison which is  happen to any inmate then on september twenty ninth september second ninety nine the plaintiff got counsel in this case they get appointed on the case this is eight months after folsom when they wouldn't let him have dungeons and dragons materials i'm paraphrasing of course what that amounts to the supreme court cases support as he would versus helms and rhodes versus stewart he  judicial pronouncement that defendants violated the constitution unaccompanied by judicial relief so there was no relief at that point all you got was this judicial pronouncement which cases every case i've ever dollars and twenty five percent of it has to be paid from the inmates judgement according to the statute is your position that if an injunction had been entered against you requiring for example the return of the that question no i don't think it is enough to tell you why i don't think it is i've got there are three reasons why that summary judgment order does not amount to the clarity for a judgment or thing is any equitable issues in that case at the time the court issued orders september twenty fifth two thousand have been moved for over twenty months by virtue of platers transfer to this higher security materials from his files around and i thought smiled and i misunderstanding the facts of the case well your honor a little bit because that was not done by the defendants in this case that was done by other people at another prison been taken out of his file at the time we get the order that says that was a violation of his rights correct is correct so at that time those two put those two things are not mo s things that are necessary to enforce a judgment and monitoring relief that's been ordered when there was no non monetary court ordered ruling it just didn't happen in this case and the court and all this time talking about it but there was never it was never an issue  half times the amount of cash order judgment and and also as far as reasonable not just got to step back from this and a way to know what about this all these legal niceties but when you have a seventy property had been returned the conviction was still on this record therefore the court had jurisdiction and rendered a dispositive liability finding as long as we're asking that the next door neighbor  from the record let's talk about the arguments your opponent makes that you didn't prevail because number one the main thing you've made your point apparently so far in this matter was the return of the  ability to comply was never litigated in this case we name every single awarded on down official quit anything to do with the seizure of the property not wants to s they don't have the property they don't have power to expunge the conviction after the court order the properties returned the convictions expired on the day before the court was going to rule on movements after the issue have been fully br types the same type of judicial shell game that they're playing with this definition of court ordered relief point in this timeline your client was moved from one correctional facility to no other correct correct when did that happen in relation to the court order it was while before but again the point i'm just trying to get the straight in my mind at the time the order was in or showing that his first amendment have been violated and you're telling us that the property should be returned he was still at the force and he was at another prison but he had a right to that declaration the case was not moot because jury presumably found out because the property had been returned and the market value that the materials had were still available to him and that's why i didn't give him damages but in terms of the value of the non monetary relief the and while i'm on that subject i want to touch on another question judge fletcher raised this court doesn't need to decide whether the prison with occasional format monetary tapp applies to monetary relief that argument was never raised in the district what they prevailed on was two hundred fifty dollars or two hundred fifty one dollars a court really if they didn't prevail on anything significant and to the extent they did get these things they wanted there is this catalytic relief that buck