good morning everyone and welcome to the mind spirit because we're anxious to hear your arguments i assume when you've talked about cell phones ok they're all right if one rings the rule is this we get it first case on for argument is the eastern versus farmer counsel ready as cited in the opening brief quote in these have a constitutional right of access to an attorney it is the policy of this department to facilitate both correspondence and personal consultation for this purpose fifteen  simple it was a motion for summary judgment defendants prevailed however the district court was in error because there was not any admissible evidence to support that judgement i don't understand how that declaration can show canberra warden can be state of mind do i understand tell me if i understand the sequence of the general sequence of events correctly the van occurred after you were convicted of a misdemeanor absolutely not the band was before i was even noticed that there was going to be a trial i heard from a newspaper reporter the band was in the beginning september twenty  wrong but from time to time they enforce that against me but not against other attorneys ok now i reserve the rest of my time and like you like to hear about sturm the only case that involves first amendment rights attorneys if you'd like to reserve your time time it's your time you're perfectly capable doing the problem with all that inadmissible evidence it's it did prejudice the court's mind the court flip flop on sturm and after it please the court i'm brian walsh deputy attorney general representing the california department of corrections defendants app all roads today lead to qualified immunity different roads the same result of visiting ban no clearly established triton qualified immunity the correspondence ban no clearly established right and even if there were under turn are any right mr easton may have had is properly limited because of the security and safety well there are there i'm just there i'm disputed facts which alone would support our position on the turner analysis it is undisputed that mr easton wrote letters to in wouldn't under turner where you'd have to examine or the district court would have to examine whether or not it was a narrowly tailored to achieve those people logical goals well turner would have to recent case of over ten versus those that the alternative means need not be ideal they did however exist it's important to consider the totality of the circumstances here that there was a very serious threat to the life has been inmate and the issue of diverting scarce prison resources to maintain security there for the impact would be unacceptable because it is so large and finally there is no ready minimal cost alternative available so even on undisputed facts our position is that of first impression for the ninth circuit i believe that that establishes that there is no clearly established right circuit law that exists is conflicting to the extent that mr easton has a right to communicate with inmate clients that right also is properly limited by turner the overton decision  that the safety and security of a penal institution are the most important goal it also affirms that turner is properly applied when safety and security the district court was correct qualified immunity should apply if the court has no further questions and will submit on the brief thank you we're going to hear from mister the their involvement in this case is removed and distinct from the access issues that have been raised in argument here today and basically there are there are two basic claims that are made that the district attorney didn't do enough to investigate to try and determine whether this inmate taylor was the credible witness before charging him with  our position that the filing of the complaint is that within the province of absolute immunity there is no duty to go out and test the credibility of your witness obviously district attorney could do that but if they don't they're at risk of losing the case but it doesn't give rise to a civil liability the other area where mr easton has some complaints against the county defend dance arises from the fact that he trial action if you will also falls within the problems in the umbrella of the absolute immunity and then the third issue involving these defendants deals with whether or not the district court abused its discretion think what happens is on the third amended complaint the mysterious been alleged does not allege that the district attorney defendant knew anything or had any contact or any information that taylor may have been lying so one that the pleadings were not specific enough to raise allegations of a conspiracy also there was prejudice given the time and in fact in may of two thousand mr houston admitted in a deposition  based on qualified immunity but as i tried to point out the qualified immunity was based entirely upon it admissible evidence which was basically garbage which if you read it you can quite prejudiced could come during the week and meet with her in my client's that was rational in a sense but the court still struck it down for all the reasons that you find  years without any ability for me to answer any of that stuff at the time when it was fresh in my mind so this whole thing is based on inadmissible documents exhibits and you can't have qualified immunity based on that sort of to the facts of personal knowledge not somebody else's knowledge thank you very much thanks for your argument just argued with me submitted for decision and will proceed to the next case on the docket which is