court this court should reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment because a jury is entitle to determine whether the appellate pelleas violated mr hisor fourteenth amendment rights when they intentionally disobeyed a court order judicial district ordered that he be held as a pretrial the taney at the clark county detention center which is operated by las vegas metropolitan police department we named the two officers who  which is permissible under nevada pleading practice we didn't get the opportunity to ascertain their identities and discovery but those of a pelleas transferred mr hisor to the department of corrections once he was in the department of corrections the he personally advised each and every one of the nevada department of corrections and individual defendants do as you claim rush on the notion that there's a fourteenth amendment right to be detained in the county in a county jail as opposed to a state prison there is your honor and that's because he didn't have any conviction and he's being punished well but you keep saying you being punished but you don't contest that they had the right to detain him he that was able to be detained as a pretrial that well and the truth is he really wasn't a pretrial detainees they made a special deal for him he pleaded guilty they vacated if they were going to reinstate the guilty plea they were trying to manipulate the system and i don't see that badly to get  into federal jail first but you're there's no doubt that your client had no right to be at large degree he could have been a larger it posted bail but he was come on your client your client if your client if there was no deal to let him go the deal was to keep him in the county jail until the feds came and took him to put him in federal prison right now he's never been taken to federal prison either i know i know but just just was not fighting let's not quibble about the facts your ass i'm asking  important question my question is do you have a constitutional right to put aside whether you're being punished to be detained in a county jail and supposed to a state prison awaiting trial you do because you can't be held in question my question is let's assume the state of nevada said we're tired of having county jails big expense to put all pretrial detainees in the president will make certain we don't punish the other there will detain them in prison punished other than the fact of being housed physically in the prison differently than he would help how was his punishment different than sitting in the county jail has a trial the solitary fine that's that's twenty three hour day lock down and he was that was done because he was complaining was i hey i'm not i'm being convicted of anything i can't i can't be serving this time as i understand it and maybe i'm wrong the district judge says you didn't make  misbehaves and therefore the sheriff says he's misbehaved i'm going to put him in solitary confinement is that violate the constitution i don't know that that would violate and under those specific facts so to hear doesn't your complaint have to be that he couldn't be put in solitary confinement for the behavior that he engaged in but i don't that's why i ask because the judge says the truth the judge said that's not the claim you were making the claim you were making was  get that opportunity i'd submit that the two pieces of evidence that if they are viewed in our favor the district courts the transcript which is exit record seventy seven seventy eight seventy nine when him in solitary confinement but not for the crime charge so under bill versus well maybe it could usually transitional trouble so that's why i asked you your colleague about what the district court held he says when i got to the state prison and i said i have a court order  when i got to when i got to county jail who took the federal state prison i'm sorry i spoke up and i said it's a mistake i got this court order and they said shut up and slap me in solitary confinement whether he characterized it correctly doesn't say  the court documents his theory to the contrary was that he quote advised caseworkers that he wasn't supposed to be there that's his word he says it again and again so so put that aside he says i told them i'm not supposed to be here and then retaliation they put me under know you get into court you get into a state prison with a court order the only way and see only way get out a court order out there's a process when you allege that i'm not supposed to be here i'm innocent i've been kidnapped it's called his complaint and that is that's blackletter now he invoked the first amendment in this complaint when he survives from yeah i think you would have however that's not the theory of this case as i say he his claim  was he he told caseworkers that he wasn't supposed to be there that's all he says he throws in the solitary confinement but they have no duty to check into that he seeks he represents in his complaint that he's represented by counsel this entire wasn't supposed to be said to have to stay not present i don't may not be your point made maybe that all of you were perfectly innocent but as a result of a screw up by the state this guy was put in state prison before he would before he pleaded guilty to the crime right or the state instance nevada allows the state prison by statute to take on county inmates for any number of reasons that health health issue that could be better addressed in the in the in the prison like they need dialysis machine the county jails overflowing they individually as an inmate in an enemy in the county institution so we safer in the prison it happens all the time just looking at the title the institution actually could be misleading the the in the federal system for instance the metropolitan correctional complex in manhattan the pretrial facility where el  supermax prison compared to a typical low security white collar so there's no constitutional rule his entire claim is premised on the on the belief that there is such a rule which is perhaps why he didn't add any factual allegations he claimed should we remain and allow him to amend his pleadings no because he doesn't seek that as relief from this court he says it now as you point out the deficiencies but it's not among his questions presented on appeal in the portions of his briefing where know he wasn't and that's because the district court agreed with this forty eight there's no such rule but he didn't allow them to amend because he thought it would be futile because he really was if you had to pick more like a can begin to put but i take it under your view of the court your honor i'm lisa anderson on behalf of the las vegas metropolitan police department because we've had some discussion about the facts of the case i think we need to distill for essential facts that relate to my client the first is that although he was at the state prison for a period of time my client doesn't come into play the start date for my client is on may the seventh of two thousand and fourteen and that is when the court held the hearing after she had already vacated the sentence and and vacated the judgment of conviction and at that time remained of him to the custody of the car county detention center the second important fact is the end date because although it's not specifically pled by date in the complaint we know that he's alleging that he was improperly incarcerated for approximately sixteen months and if we look at that sixteen month date from the date that the judgment was vacated in january thirty first of two thousand and thirteen we come back to that may two thousand and fourteen to date again and that's that comports with the date that he actually was returned to our custody which was on may the fifteenth of two thousand and fourteen so with respect to my client your honor we're dealing with your honor's we're dealing with a scenario of approximately eight days where he was allegedly transported in violation of the court's order and was held at the state correctional facility for those eight days before he was transferred back to the clark county because consumers any contention that you improper may be moving about th with it in that particular scenario that transport in and of itself the violation of the court's order i agree with the court you know if if in fact we did that there was a valid court order that we were aware of and we transfer him in violation of that court order  that's a contempt issue but it certainly doesn't give rise to a separate due process right it doesn't create a liberty interest for him to remain at the clark county detention center particularly in light of the fact that you know his primary argument against both of the defendants but in more acutely towards us is that it has to do with the location you know i shouldn't have been in prison i should have been detained at the detention center but at least with respect to those eight days we see specifically in the complaint he doesn't plead that during that eight day period of time that's when he was in solitary confinement in fact it's pled that that solitary confinement occurred before that day before my client was involved so during that eight day period of time his only complaint the only alleged punishment if you will was the location and the court is absolutely right and i agree wholeheartedly with counsel that there isn't any constitutional right to be held in a you know in a in  a facility like ours where it's typically pretrial detainees as opposed to a state correctional facility i when i was looking at you know various issues related to this case i looked at the amakosa briefs in the kingsley case before the supreme court last year and there are over twenty states that commingle pretrial detainees and and convicted prisoners in these types of correctional facilities there is no per se rule of law that's once he gets an order that he considers beneficial to myself to stay in the county jail where there are there may be better facilities for better insulation more television better food i don't know what he does and then the he loses that by a direct violation of a court order doesn't he have a claim that he has a liberty or property interest that was taken away from him by the two officers who transported him to the prison my answer to that would be no because first and first and foremost we don't have him pleading that the conditions were different in either of the two facilities fact i would submit to you that the conditions at the state prison are probably substantially better than that at the clark county detention center but more importantly the claim that was made it was against my client the police department and so we have to evaluate this pursuant to mon el and hear a single violation of a court order in a very aberrant situation like this it doesn't help the individual officers doesn't well it doesn't help the individual officers liability against those officers but that the officers weren't weren't weren't in front of him at this time when the the sole claim that was against it was against the police department as a municipality but again you know with respect to that liberty interest again i'm not aware of any cases they certainly weren't played in this in this lawsuit that relate to the notion that just simply by virtue of the fact that you receive a court order that that would otherwise create a due process or a liberty interest that doesn't otherwise exist under the constitution under the apartment of corrections conceded that we have a constitutional claim there the argument being well it was applied that way that's not a just resolution i mean not the just my solution but we're four years down the road in this case and you've never resolution to say to allow them to move to a more strict pleading standard and then trying to use against us at page nineteen of the opening brief there's the argument section that specifically asked for the opportunity to amend the