have that thank you the court among the most fundamental principles in our legal system that the government cannot deprive a person of liberty without legal authority that is what happened here unconstitutional we held in prison almost a year after release state that was mandated by state law the district court's whole basis for dismissing its claims was that this release date was labeled a conditional release date as opposed to the date on which is maximum term of imprisonment and as we show our respects distinction is meaningless to the constitution we cited cases from six other circuits holding that it violates the  amendment substantive due process or both to imprison a person beyond the date on which is release is mandated by state law seven circuit is specifically found that it violates the th amendment there the court held that it violates the th amendment to imprison a person quote beyond the release date dictated by state law and quote we also cite multiple cases from this circuit approvingly citing those other circuits precedents age twenty of our opening brief we discussed souther versus city of new york in which this court wrote quote we have suggested in the past and other courts within and without this circuit have held th regardless of what label you attach to that release date or which legal provisions may have been applied to arrive at that date the numerous cases from this circuit and other circuits that we cite clearly established that rule so i presume that i give you the fact that he has he was entitled to release d but it's entitled to release is premised upon a correct calculation of his local jail time credited that yes that's correct and who has under new york law who has to saw the responsibility for that calculation under new york city has the statutory obligation to certify jail time in the st instance and have the rd department also say that the state has to accept the local calculation that that's binding with rd department has said that it is binding understate law in the sense that the prison official cannot unilaterally causal link between her response and the and the injuries that your client receive yes certainly and how does she fit within that causal link then if she doesn't have the authority alter it and be she's bound by the local calculation under section six hundred dollars she was founded by the by the local calculation only in the sense that again she didn't have the authority to unilaterally alter the jail time figure on that piece of paper one from the original conviction he got it was doesn't convict mister amin or convictions of which he got consecutive one year sentence which then all done by puncture was go to two years straight to local time and then he had some additional ninety day sentence but her question to the local officials were was the only local time she'd be going back to rikers and the answer was no he doesn't owe any local time but the calculation of his jail time credits wrong what is open certificate the local officials correct that's right and she has the obligation if she can alter it how does she then fit within the cultural change in name being won't be that she should have asked other people but if she responsible with regard to that because he doesn't fit d within the causal chain award on the retail award for example although it may be ultimate responsibility for seeing the prisoners are released when the sense of the serve does not exhibit deliber indifference by failing to address the son's calculation problem brought to his attention when there are procedures in place for calling others to to pursue committed partnership i don't understand how she then and how she reason to know that all of whom could have all of them could evolve to the result but when you can't alter the result how can you be deliberately indifferent she didn't have to alter it herself but she was in a position that on she had to was take doesn't do something the word might also then be responsible a constitutional tort dismiss friend for what he was was the person who was responsible for entering those figures in the computer and she was the one who was in the position to take even in most minor steps to follow up on friend for new the figure was wrong and she had the certainly have the ability and the obligation under all the cases that we say to you know make take the most minimal steps to make sure that that issue was was was finally really should have nine hundred and ninety days and they say no this is right what happens then will she actually spoke with we don't just answer my question i gave you a hypothetical my answer the hypothetical don't i think this is wrong and therefore i need your to tell me what it is whether whether you know what the right date is may say nah this is the right number five hundred days is right not nine hundred and ninety six what you see libel if she by state law ms nixon's characterization and bias misreading burg and give me a citation what state law that in point is that she had that she hadn't she wasn't bound by either of them which she was ridiculous that he has held that long and i know that the city's paid you because of their negligence and that this is not the only incident and what just occurred totally understand that my question to us how broad a net does a identical issues necessarily must have been decided in the prior action and be decisive of the present action and the party could be precluded from  hurd federal claims so for instance the court of claims never made any factual findings about our allegation but mister hurd made detail well founded complaints to misread and berger about  erroneous amended jail time certificate and then falsely told him there was there was nothing she could do about it but that allegation is key to our federal claim additionally after miss  gleefully celebrating his continued and present imprisonment yes it does with a smiley face the mo d the court claims made no factual findings whatsoever about those allegations if you did you appeal the judgment of the new york  york court of claims is as well anticipating that a court judgment might have a problem coos of the fact on your federal action here the reason we didn't appeal it is because we didn't we didn't have the incentive to because of the almost certain adoption advantages because of the initial settlement and as i just argued this this this court claims action does not have precludes of the fact  appeal again your honor because the state court made only limited factual findings that concerned whether the weather was friends or recently different reasonably deferred to this roney is jail time certificate  court did not want to meet i'm sorry it's not done it's a it's not a question of what actually happened and what the in terms of the factual findings it's what you did you have the tailored to ensure that the issue to be precluded was thoroughly explored in a prior proceeding to dig squarely addressed and specifically decided so that the litigant as a dane court to have those those factual allegations  that is her subjective behavior and decided then why isn't that the terminator problem is that the court of claims did not squarely address or specifically decided the key  did not go on to make any factual findings about the key factual allegations that underlie the federal complaint which is that she went on to ignore mister hurd's well founded detail complaints about the erroneous miss of the jail time that you're you're talking about it did but again the case was clear that that the court has to a fairly explored and squarely addressed the the issues that are that are to be precluded when you talk about lack of incentive i understand that argument but case law says that while lack of incentive to litigate vigorously may render the collateral estoppel doctrine inoperative lack of incentive to appeal does not have the same effect rather and i'm quoting from pinky versus keene rather failure to appeal an adverse judgment negates the produce of the fact that that judgment only clear that under new york law the lack of incentive to appeal is relevant to the johnson case and we also cite the church case from the department again those are page five of a reply hear from your adversary and then the questioning will begin with judge leslie again thank your honor may please the court when defang on behalf of the defendant stacey fried in the district distinctions between the cases that i plan to have cited and that the facts of this case as you kind of alluded to i understand you're asking more of a hypothetical question not necessarily tailor allegations here i'm not really really what i want to know that this necessarily presents the occasion to announce several here because we don't think the allegations again to the collateral estoppel point which i also want to touch on really do you are not warranted for this case to be the vehicle by which the court announces a rule but i think that the flipside of that is for purposes of again liability in this case there has to be clearly established law that would give a think for the reasons if the collateral stoppel point here the allegations are what the allegations are and i gan i want to do you i do want to point out that the bear allegation in this case is that misreading burghs a clerical employee for no apparent or discernible reason quote agreed with a city employee to continue to do detain plaintiffs i don't that that allegation itself is not even entitled to the presumption of truth and so those are some of the reasons why this may not be the appropriate vehicle to announce such a role because the allegations are that bear allegation of conspiracy which courts have consistently held is not sufficient correct and the district court said that the complaint failed to state a client because mister her didn't have a liberty interest she made reference to the fact that it was a pay if they created right a nd then she made rather than just recording a reference to the parole case and of course there is no liberty interest in parole because eleven may be entitled to pro consideration but gotta tell the parole you'd agree with she equated parole to ready conditional release now is it not the case that after mister hurd sir the period of time and had gotten his jail time credit and he there is because an overly situations where they're an individual subject to post in a conditional sentence or conditional release rather there is still parole supervision that there are certain things or to be approved as well that's  ok but but he has a right to be released does he not subject to those conditions yes if nothing else happened but i guess i that is correct your honor and but  process is not to seem analysis as to whether or not an individual has a right or liberty interest that's protected by the substantive due process analysis and which is i think is where the district court was headed because  process rights are those that are derived straight from the constitution here we have an entitlement arguably for release under a state law created scheme of good time credit that is not constitutionally mandated  that's not what we're talking about here let me ask you a question if this calculation had been right was there any was there any way if there had not been this problem in the certificates of nine hundred and ninety six days the state have to liberty interest in being released if you just told me the state had to release him no your honor i don't mean to i i want to be clear i don't mean to say that he didn't have a liberty interest what i was saying is that what is a liberty and being ok the question is that i asked you was did he have a right to be released if he got the good time credit and that was an accurate calculation of his local jail time credit and you just told me yes is that you stand by that answer i  for your viewers who say because of the combination of those corrections law and or the fact that we have never characterized committed determination to the nature of this conditional release that this is not clearly  not have the ability to correct it but aside from that it's not the general question of whether or not there's some free floating violation around again just tailoring it to the allegations in this case which are stepping  process and th amendment and so that the burden is on the plaintiffs to identify clearly established law that would have put an individual on notice and here we had the you know the situation in no way minimizing the y i think but it's there's no question or if hanson buts about the mandate and so it's mandated under state law and how can that differ from because he police from prison there may be continuing obligations of some sort some supervision or something of that sort but but that you know the liberty interest in walking out of jail no matter what the subsequent conditions are it's not like parole where your you a liberty interest and not to at the risk of beating a dead horse i just ask your draw nurse to consider and may ultimately disagree with us on this point but if you look at the case law about liberty interest there are different liberty interests that are of different dimensions so again here they're made in a state law violation and may be a deprivation of the of liberty interest but individuals there wasn't any lack of authority  and state law mandates when state law mandates no jail for this person at a certain point that's the same as the fact that you know that the judge sentences  process make the meme a question about his liberty interest everybody has a liberty interest if they're not bound to be in jail it seems to me no matter that no matter how  think we don't i don't think we disagree on and then there was a violation and had the original jail time certificate main you know was on the books and continue to be and  turn that with a determination that needed to be made and that took some time but they did it expeditiously but i think the problem was because of these conflicting sentences docs did have a policy and again this is fully fleshed out in the state court judgment and i don't want to overstep and talking about but this is the process essentially is that there was confirmation to try to make sure they didn't release someone that actually needed to continue to be can confined by different jurisdiction and so that's when the issue came of the conflicting information and where as your honour's questions alluded to earlier misremembered with told no that regional information was incorrect and so she was waiting to get respond to her its complaints should also be collaterally stuff because i think it's our view of what was decided and the facts were before the the court of claims here  our encompassing and those particular findings because those are the allegations they're central allegations and the central syria liability was identical between the two cases their plaintiffs put  of the same evidence the that he claimed that he made these inquiries but again the record shows and his allegations that misremembered responded and said you need to address it with the city don't have we don't have authority to change it and so those were part of the court of claims factual findings and that's you can see from the agenda documents it's apparent on the face of those documents what plaintiffs was arguing it's just that on the full summary judgment she continually followed up and asked for information she got conflicting information from different city officials and she said i need something in writing that it was the whole course of those facts and allegations was fully before the court of claims and that's a central issue whether or not there whether again plaintiffs continued access detention was objective really reasonable or where there was some basis for and there the court of claims result those issues again and again to the full and fair opportunity point again this is whether or not the plaintiffs may have had a reduced incentive to pursue an appeal after the court of claims have produced a final judgment is really not the relevant appears in the record and here we have now a conclusive state court judgment that actually decides the central issues that are identical across both actions which is the allegation that misremembered for no apparent reason conspired with the city employee to just choose to detain the plaintiff in this case without any basis those issues risk really presented before the state court represented by the same counsel vigorously contested and had produced a final judgment which is entitled to preclude the fact and that's a separate basis where the court even not to reach the constitutional issues or the qualified immunity issues that affords this course basis for affirming th not the basis of the deliberate indifference claim or at least the toughest old faces the basis is as all these cases that we've cited hold you can you can show an th amendment or something to do process violation by estab that the state official took ineffectual or no action in response to well founded complaints that you were being imprisoned unlawfully that's the those are the operative facts here issue because it had you know time there was no constitutional right in the st place but that was wrong the nd point is i want to talk about the qualified immunity issue the out of circuit case law can clearly establish a right in this circuit if it clearly foreshadows the right and all the key all this cases from six circuits that we cite show that show that they do so want to draw the court's attention to the simon case this is just like the simon case in which judge katzman wrote simon concern the execution of the material witness warrant and the court noted that there was very little case arguing to real witness warrants specifically as opposed to routine arrest warrants the court reason that it was integral to the th amendment that the police must obey the terms on the face of any warrant so it's found not only that the police officers had violated the th amendment but failing to obey the plain terms of the material witness warrant in that case but also that they weren't titled qualified immunity because even in the absence of of relevant case file it was so obvious that their actions run off all the same thing here doesn't matter how many decisions that specifically dealt with prisoners help past their conditional release date it's integral to the th amendment and to due process the prison official can confine someone asked the date on which she just knows the law requires that person to be freed after getting the information about the nine hundred and ninety six dollars days she made an inquiry and she wanted to be sure that there wasn't a mistake and that that's reasonable turned out to be wrong there was a mistake  later on but not the beginning but she didn't know that at that point so unless you're saying that as soon as you get the st information that it would entitle a prisoner to release you can't check any it just can't work that way right with wind if i understand your question you're saying that i think you're saying that the initial receipt of the nine hundred and ninety six days was the equivalent to receiving a warrant a grant you for the sake of argument the best correct but the real the real grabbing in our claim is that she then heard from the city jail time coordinator on multiple occasions that the original jail time  was in fact correct the jail time or to the jail time coordinator had checked with the state office of sentencing review and confirmed that and then mister hurd also himself made details well founded complaint as we please in our complaint that the original doing something the state law does a lot or do you told me that already that somehow she was violating its constitutional rights by not going back and just accepting the st that that's the question to a qualified interview that she has to know that implications of section six hundred and eighty of the correct new york correctional officer are with regard to the obligations of new york state docs employees in a factory in the release of people whose good time and their local jail time then