and as you all know this is a case and an issue dropped out of the nineteen eighty three action that was filed in federal district court in louisiana  the department of corrections we've cited three issues on appeal but today i would like for us to focus on the denial of qualified immunity the district court judge in march of two thousand and fifteen denied a request for the defense of qualified immunity and this is what i'd like to discuss today the basis for that and the involved and i'd like to point out that in briefing this matter plaintiff's counsel has pointed out the the jurisdictional issue and i'd like to confront that there was a report  recommendation that was issued prior to the judgment coming out as always and no there was not an objection made those objection made counsel and plaintiff on the basis of several of the issues are multiple issues decided on summary judgment however the end result was a wash and in our favor therefore there was no filing of an objection however we did appeal on several issues one of which was qualified immunity which brings us here today and i'd like to point out that an immediate appeal from the not denial of summary judgment call thought immunity is available when there's a purely legal issue in this case there's a purely legal issue and that legal issue would be whether they'll always clearly established at the time of the alleged civil rights violation and it is our contention in this case and to give you th stalder which was decided in two thousand and understand is it's it's precedent is not doesn't exist it's limited however it states that that scenario interpreted the law for them that they had no that law was not clearly established and they had no reason to know that their actions were invalidation and federal law requires a home of clearly established law plaintiff here the interpretation of cops v whitley or any other statute that determined good time eligibility for mr owens was misinterpreted and they had no reason to know they were misinterpreting it it misinterpreting that until they got to the first circuit in the first circuit said whoa wait a minute you did this wrong he is entitled to those good those days and he's entitled to those days all the way back to  and three days after the first circuit renders that opinion and the department of corrections grants mr owens the related salt which was to release him and before that they were not it was not clear it was per what is required under qualified immunity that was not clearly established until the first circuit said  twelve two thousand and fourteen is actually the the decision and that's the fact scenario is not the same rights violation was actually that defendants argued we did not use we did we did not understand that to be the interpretation of excessive use of force we did not use excessive use of force that's not clearly established  how they got to supreme court was on the constitutional issue that clearly established law and what the court said and plume hall was at the state level this should be decided on a case by case basis however until now the supreme court who sets the precedent for what's clearly established has has not decided this this issue you're right at the time you acted that threshold for excessive force was not clearly established and i'm comparing the facts of that to the facts and the case that bar which is yes cox the whitley existed at the time that the whitley was not precedent for the purposes of clearly established when you're looking at a constitutional issue in a due process fall a should not to mention i'd was really no way for the d of c even if they were confused there's really no way for they are to know that what they were doing was not a correct interpretation of how to decipher that time computation until the first circuit  time competition for the state and to my knowledge that's never been offered into federal court records however is there anywhere in here where there's a coherent theory explaining why it would be objectively reasonable to say pox doesn't apply yes the record shows the record will show the record does show that there were forms and i assume you guys are you may not be familiar  whatever diminution of sentence and there are forms that are filed into the record that will show when this particular inmate mr owens sondhi is and according to the record he did not sign one until i think there was a misinterpretation of the statute vs the case at the tom with the in the d is c and i'm going to be honest with  sentence i'm going to be honest i can't tell you that which employee versus another employee of the d n c misunderstood cox versus this the statute that says what the effective date is but that in and of itself is why we're here on the issue of qualified immunity well thought immunity itself is a protection for a government official to make a mistake if they're not allowed to make a mistake you're holding them to a standard that just does not exist while found immunity shields them from this exact situation it's why they went th qualified immunity that her rights are are substantially affected because it puts a fear in every one of those employees and every subsequent employee of doing their job and  that i mean that as the basis for qualified immunity if we don't allow to be used what do we have it and these guys are their prison employees they're not us they don't understand you know  vs anything else until somebody sits down and does what we're doing to explain it to him and furthermore we're at a point in this case where the relief that was asked for was immediately granted in fact i think the record shows that mr owens was released three days after the first circuit said recalculate his time and know go fix all of this and at this stage what we're asking for is obviously we want to reversal on the denial of the qualified immunity because we're not afforded what should have been afforded to us in that qualified immunity is set up just for a situation like this where a mistake is made and we get to go to the court system and find out how we made the mistake and where the fix and thereby set this precedent so that this doesn't what the federal courts in the supreme court to require are of clearly established clearly established should be in the first circuit that those are case by case but this is this is a constitutional issue and to a valid cost to tional right that right has to be clearly established and that can't happen until you've gone  the the federal appellate system and that's what our basis for this is today this was this riot was not yes he had a right and we're not even saying that he wasn't entitled to those days what we're interest and that retroactivity is that it's not a discretionary thing that's a mandatory thing so that would be a recognized liberty interest protected by the due process c  made individual liable in a case for a man was kept nine months past his release date when there was an order for that release date and the court determined that he had constructive kno run nine month period of time he should have known that the man was due to be released so even though the sheriff in that case was not personally involved in the handling of pay for things such as that he was deemed to be held liable in that case because of constructive note the court and to all the current analogize to property transactions of financial instrument transactions saying we have constructed notice of those awarded good time he signed a contract and that's what that's the thing is the cost to willie and i believe no one's case focused on is that the eligibility for good time is the signing of the contract days sore he had originally a thirty year sentence so he was he probably had fifteen years of good time this for the record the some of the arguments made by the defendants below or that well you know he was found he played guilty to attempted manslaughter and play guilty of manslaughter these are crimes of violence will find section five seventy one point one as a reference under the statutory scheme the state of louisiana so eligibility was there for a good time it should have been a mistake about that all the record analysts involved slow a ram he testified that he knew about costly what way he knew it was to be retroactively applied so if he did all these things and he was even confronted with that by owens personally how could he possibly not be deliberately indifferent to the clearly established wife to be released and that is what we have at issue here since nine hundred seventy seven  hundred seventy seven and there's been this court has reviewed a multiple diverse ways in which the wife to be released has come up has come up over a quarter release named in that position the answer which is that tab eleven record excerpt has stalled or he's the person coming in and answering and that was to see that answer was argument on we would say that a there was no agreement between owens and the state that has been released would release the state from its obligation to pay compensatory damages for his not be be credible or would make a difference in the  have a right to that good time credit you don't you no longer have a right to diminution of sentence and that was the situation that took place in this case and on the stand that plaintiff's coun has also pointed out that he feels like you can't go back and undo this issue of the credit and we're not arguing that i'm not going to sit here and are you that he's not entitled to any credit however i would like to point out in correction of kind state said we're going to give you this one thousand two hundred fifty six days again he's already been released he was released in february of two thousand and fourteen so at this point he has received it regardless of honour's for this court to grant any relief and the error must have affected appellant substantial rights affecting the outcome of the case these errors should be addressed and remedied where the error severely upsets fairness in  fourteen case and here to ask for this based on and asked that you recognize the plain air base on the fact that qualified immunity does substantially affect the rights of an official who is trying to do a job such as in the situation where you have a panel or an office of officials to even as plaintiff's counsel pointed out are working together on time computation you have you know one of had limited involvement and the other defendants mr go in as well as the current time computation and have all said how complicated this process is and of all said that they they were an interprete recognized where appropriate and will stand with the contention that this right was not clearly established and i would hold steadfast that what should be controlling in this situation regardless of co i cannot i realize were stopped from what took place at the state court and we can see that but at this point you've got a recent decision which came out of the same department of correction the fifth circuit opinion of nelson versus stalder that was rendered in two thousand and two which stood ten years after at least ten years after kotzebue whitley and still made it to this court and