released he was put on parole and he never checked in never you never did file this action yes you did yeah ok so there's a couple things we can do we can dismiss this outcome and if we did issue an order doing that you might catch him right here that i think part of the problem that happens is the department of corrections has so few resources that they can't go out there and question the cases you cited all relate to criminal matters on your motion to dismiss this is not a criminal matter this is a civil matter and one nine hundred eighty three case usually leave the country they've either whole or the country home from idaho and i remember my criminals leave in idaho and taken off to california we could never find them and so therefore in those instances of course we had to dismiss their criminal appeals but this is not that case this is a civil case it's a civil case based on what the state might have done  in a particular incarceration so i'm trying to find the case when you filed a motion which would give me the opportunity to stray right there's the case it says for the replies on the one nine hundred eighty three  otherwise i've got to go forward with against whether he's here not makes a really good point because the case was really clear that you that there has to be some kind of relationship between so it's really a tiny mechanism to ensure compliance it's not punishment for sex i mean i me stop you just a minute it seems to me that when this particular case we're looking at a two thousand statute and under the two thousand statute california didn't have any right to extract d n a from the guy they'd already paroled he was in on another crime for which d n a did not need to be extracted and california held him on the second crime which was not subject to the statute and extracted the d n a after he could have been paroled after the state of the evidence now tell me how does the california department of corrections have any idea that they can extract d n a out of someone after the guy's already been paroled does include if they've ever been convicted of a qualifying well but if you read the statute and maybe read it to you it says but in any case prior to physical release from custody he was released he was off parole he was not even in the present he'd been not only later at least not on probation but he  was released from the parole afterwards and then comes in on a crime that doesn't qualify and then has to give his d n a that's the statute in two thousand we're not going to the two thousand  physical released from custody and i underlined of several times so that's a worry my second worry is this where does he allege in anything that he had asked that this was any more than a respond he had that's why let me ask you a second question how many times was he allowed to amend if you remember this was from a complaint fourth amended complaint in other words the district judge who had this person in front of him gave him three times to try to a man to search a claim against the appropriate individual and say the appropriate things in this amendment and again this is lived he had a release date and he should have been released and that detaining him for a period of time longer then what he was required  that just policy wise if you start to forget differentiating who is what is considered a qualifying offense at this point it becomes difficult i think to actually