accessing a law library he was not allowed to attend the religious services that he had been attending while he was in general population and over all his conditions of confinement amounted to punish mint when he was schedule or he was not there and the ability to extend that when he showed that he needed more discovery unless there are any questions about the time when asked the appeal like to focus on the first argument the you address which is whether his claim should have been told was incarcerated for a crawl violation for the purposes of section three fifty two point one he was in jail an execution and i mean the sentence of a criminal court that was the holding in city of san diego one seventy six f three d eleven e three at eleven eighty nine and general population where he stayed for over a one year but the program location expired on the fourteenth of december so it was from december fourteenth through you know then for the following year two thousand and he filed a civil his civil rights lawsuit within one year of that so he was in continuous use continuously incarcerated from december third through january fourth two thousand all of this alex sacramento county jail but part of it was criminal part was civil so right well i guess you could say that there were some party it could have been criminal strictly criminal in the  democrats of a criminal court because the only reason he could be incarcerated under the civil sexually violent predator act was because he was already in the custody for the criminal case so what point then was the execution of a criminal son he was and actually teach in a common sense for the entire period in the sense that he was incarcerated because he was picked up on a program occasion and then he remained incarcerated the same jail for the entire period and the only reason that he could be in jail that entire time is because he'd been picked up on a criminal sentence what was the criminal summons really was that was being defense to his commitment proceedings defendants have not identified any prejudice and having offend against these and the district court certainly found no bad faith on the part of jones so the court in the case should be say and mate confined in an institution before the enactment of that rule and afterwards all the cases talk about the prisoner mailbox rule that was a code of cation of that that was obvious when you're a prisoner that you're not going to have a lot of rights and you don't certainly want the guard to take the repeal to sit on it and to put it in the mailbox after your appeal has run but mr jones was not a was not a prisoner in this case he was a civil detain the end of the sexual violent predator act and he was to a mailbox does he have now his original proof of service said that he put it in the mail he subsequently asked the courts querrey about whether or not his appeal was timely and he said well they do have an internal mail system and by the way they also have a mail center from eight believe it's different i believe that the reason is that the past year was hopefully to be rehabilitated that's right but what if he said i want to go on leave because i have to pursue my case hope would happen practically hopefully they won't let him go  a criminal charge and the courts that what we're going to look at that period of time from when you got there at the so you're arraignment as being incarcerated on a criminal charge this guy is not fair on a criminal charge he's here on a civil proceeding actually if this doesn't that the town he has trying to determine how to handle the stock only what he's waiting for his charge is treated one way and the legislature says no we want you to treat him a different way in your jail so that he gets different rights and benefits i mean that's sort of dancing on the head of a pin if you will but at least when he's in the past you know i think we can all agree that it's definitely he's not in jail at that point and he's not a prisoner and whether or not he filed his appeal timely is when he was record six months after he was at sacramento it's very clear that he knows it's over he thinks he should be treated differently six months during that one year that he is in the general population he doesn't complain about having law library access like he does when he is finally separated away from the general population so maybe along with the answer your question is there are some that point distinctions in this case and clearly it is difficult though and i look we've separating both of them had to change on the way to a point  they just couldn't handle something else that was if you will and we don't have information about how that went i suppose but he certainly had access that a lot of other people have made equable pulling argument i would have but the case that they cite and maybe this is where i lost track was that the president has availed himself of another procedure some sort of administrative remedy that doesn't work and then he has to file the civil complaint they then kind of bootstrap that back to the fight to that administrative remedy saying well it should be told while he was trying to work it out he didn't do anything in this case there wasn't any other procedure whether or not he told his in officials that maybe he had a problem i mean that's not what the case th assume that it was a christian i have five quick points on rebuttal first with respect to jones being represented by an attorney that's really a red herring because he was not being represented for section one hundred eighty three for civil rights claims and you know fundamentally jones has several claims first amendment free exercise not being allowed to exercise religion not having access to the law library not being allowed to step in the law library fourteen this the district court said that from the documents and that it is not clear why he was even strip searched so there's there's definitely travel issues a factor here and when you look at what's going on with the strip searches you know there must be something now turning back to his so i talked about several of his independent claims which state cause of action are nine hundred eighty three but more broadly he has a claim for being punished when he shouldn't and he wasn't convicted or even accused of any crime and we know from last verses baxley that when you're in temporary detention that can't be any worse then the involuntary confinement that you're that you could be committed to purgatory it should not be worse than hell and here it was much worse the state acknowledged that it would become a problem if administrative segregation and if you had a small number of civil t detainees who were then not allowed to do the things that just ordinary prisoners and with not necessarily because you can't be a civil detainee and a criminal attorney at the same time except perhaps overlap here but let me just let me just a just because this is very important so here's the argument he was the but this court said that's doesn't matter the fact the matter is he was continuously incarcerated for the entire period and that's why section three thirty two point one should apply so in this case i don't think you need to trade one right i don't think you need to trade his constitutional rights to mispronouncing answers versus corrections corporation of america