three action with some penn state law claims filed by a former prisoner in the county jail against the county jail officials and the county i would fr issue presented by this case as follows is there a liability created by the actions of state jail officials when they purposefully and in bad faith set out to not just ignore but to disregard and subvert a mandatory sentencing order and then do so by capricious manner materially altering the conditions of confinement as ordered by the court and in various ways mistreating the prisoner when there has been a hearing determining otherwise i think your honour's referring there was a hearing three days well there was a hearing three days after mr years i was released that us was changed which i describe in my brief which he was not present at didn't know about which witnesses were prevented from from appearing and i think that maybe the hearing you're on is referring to i didn't think it was quite way i thought the tourney was there that's correct presentation to the court was that they could naga didn't know anything poppy hearing it was conducted without his knowledge or consent it was conducted without his knowledge even even though there had been hearing till twenty one days after he was hysterically status was changed and the hearing was created by another probation officer that they went to who was not the one who knew anything about this case filing a notice but he had violated the terms of his rel then they had a hearing from a different judge she didn't know anything about the case as i said at which she was not only not allowed to be present that but there was considerable evidence that the probation officer and police officers who did understand the situation were prevented from being present and you're saying that denied him due process which otherwise might have been sufficient even if you could kind of rock along with you saying y that i can do that and then but let's just say perhaps like your client i say well you got a year in jail i don't care if you want to go out to the work for a law program you know sign up  don't send them to that or let's say on one of these work for a lot of programs i know people have to pay some money to be and then that opens the door for an individual to say well you know i don't have money to pay that you know so i can't be on the work for a long program but i have a liberty interest to do my sentence on that work for a lawyer program so you know now you're depriving me of that right well i guess i'm having a hard time since i having a hard time seeing how you would have a work release program it has discretion with the sheriff and the judge says something like you are eligible for the sheriff's work release program and then you have to go through a process to see if the sheriff will allow you this was not the case in this it was absolutely not the case in this situation that the judge in this case said this is an work release this is i am sensing you to spend certain hours in the jail and certain hours each it happened several times and also there were there was a modification to allow the people to do and then this wasn't the only defendant the only person who was involved in the problem but to allow them to eat because the jail was refusing to feed them and to allow them to do laundry and personal things so but the point is and the probation officer and the court's order made this very clear it wasn't conditional upon anything he was to be out during that what those hours period and that was what the jail didn't like and there was a dispute between the jail and the judge and the jail set out to just figure a way to subvert the court order and to make my client and others lives as miserable as possible in the process and that's what occurred in this case the liberty interest issue revolves around the sands in case and let me just refer to that it's the stand and case said that states may create liberty interest protected by the due process clause and there are two things first while not exceeding the sense sense that the judge impose and such an unexpected manner as to give rise to the protection of the due process caused by its own force and secondly that does not impose an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the normal prison why so there's action was also completely capricious they just took the guy at his release status for no reason that had anything to do with what the court had ordered and that i believe also violate substantive due process which i'd love to talk about it a great length but my time is up almost what's right is that if you file a claim under state law against a public law enforcement official you have to post a bond i don't think that requirement applies to civil rights action in the court and as an equal protection violation thank you ron are appropriate the court's time and negligence claim that was raised in this particular case when a law enforcement official has been sued and that was the legislative intent was to preclude law enforcement officers from always fearing bond can be filed they could have filed a five dollar bond as a prerequisite to filing a stiff claim against your family and then only if the defendant objects to it or raises an issue then a cork allows then it allows for the cork to determine the sufficiency of the bond but this issue is it's a prerequisite to find finally in a state law claim against a law enforcement official and i don't spring court has stated in the pig case as well and green wave as well as even more recently that the remedy is dismissal because it is a prerequisite you can't cure it by simply filing a bond subsequently it's the question and that overcomes all the equal protection arguments in the constitutional law constitutional arguments on this particular bonding statute that again only applies to the state law negligence cases but i think that is a very important issue for this court to address because in some cases in federal court there the courts are not necessarily being consistent and saying and in following the statute this says the decision that the case must be dismissed that's the clear language of the long going back to the liberty interest issue  com plaintiffs counsel and how it's counsel were priests and in error or address different issues but i think the stand in case is very clear that you look at whether the condition is a typical and significant creates an atypical and and significant hardship on the prisoner and in this particular case and then what you're looking at as judge coffin are pointed out very appropriately this man was incarcerated there are other cases that deal with a person who has been released kind of on some special program are there on parole the release and so they can live outside the jail but his original decision said i don't grant work release it creates problems for the for the for the sheriff but he allowed for the probation officer to motion out for this furlough program or for him to be able to be released for work and do his laundry at home to remove that does not create an atypical and significant hardship upon him serving his incarcerated time so at the very outset you don't say that what that right is here is or what the interest is is the interest to be due to work outside the prison walls to go home and be with your son  simply results in the typical thing going to jail does and that is confined to this i would and i would compare it to the probation being on probation is is not is a privilege yes and once you get probation revoked you're back to typical us serving your time in fine confinement same thing doesn't make any difference that the court was no judicial overview of this but in this particular case you had the jailers who didn't find him at work and there's some it's a tangential red herring that he they went to the wrong address for his home because the judge smiles or you know revoking this work release and furlough didn't address that it was the question of whether he was at work but any time they are ever going to have that and they told him exactly and  o'clock at night because it was it was a late later shift that allowed him some additional time so so and in other words in this case on tuesday they they find a problem on wednesday they tell the probation officer she writes a letter telling the judge to review that they have the jails revoked if that's tuesday on friday judge denies or holds an emergency an expedited hearing allowing for mr years i guess attorney to present a motion to undo the revocation of the court that the jailers had done and stipulated on the record that he didn't need this client present clear that his counsel has binding authority to represent his interests and since he represented on the record to jeff's minus or that he did have authority to act on behalf of his client then his client was defender had requested the sex without hearing in the judge was giving him i mean it was friday night because i think if you read at the very end he says now you can go off and have a good three weekend and it was late in the evening even so i think his attorney requested the hearing and brought in the prosecutor and so there may not have even been notice to the prosecutor to have the witnesses available but they did and once they had a stipulation of facts there wasn't a need to have those witnesses the were released programs if if i'm correct me if i'm wrong that if say you go after the jobsite you don't find the person their county sheriff just go out and get that person and take it back to jail and then worry about it later i mean you sign certain conditions it's not a question of that yes or supposed to be in jail and if they decide at any point that they want you back in jail as opposed to out there they can just go do it and bring you back to jail and then you worry about appearing later exactly on the right and the record has a work released and request signed by mr you resign or that has those stipulated stipulations and that's where this gets  do with i mean had had that kind of motivation which is necessary for an eighth amendment violation as to the medical sleek and and meals even in that case the  plaintiff admitted in a on the record that he was not he did not suffer any significant adverse effects from any of those cleaning deprivations and those don't rise to the level of the eighth amendment violation as well obvious from my experience they have available they follow the ninth circuit ruling as far as having available legal resources sufficient for what is necessary think i would just like to make one thing that's clear as i can there is typically a work release program and there forms and all that but this case didn't involve that this case involved a judge who was trying to give people work release and the sheriff was ignoring him and so the judge said will forget all that then i'm just going to issue an order and the order says without condition and without discretion you will be in this prison or will be out of jail during certain hours and mr here is our good did not violate that order in any way or shape or form and there's no dispute about that and the jail just went out there arbitrarily and said my gosh he's not at work this minute we're just going to revoke they have no authority to do that they have to follow the order of the court and that's what they did that was arbitrary and  you know work release programs are much like judge callahan described i mean they are discretionary with the sheriffs very often and many of the cases you'll read in this area you know turn upon that fact  this was not that situation it was a very unique situation because as one of the witnesses said the judge and the sheriff were better nads about this and the sheriff was going to have his way and by golly he did