stem from the legal or factual errors of a state court judgment as required by both this court and the supreme court's precedent mr glascock his injury stems from the conduct of defendants and defendants injured mr alaska's when they violated his constitutional rights by wrongfully seizing his property papers that include some of the only copies of documents that he needs first post conviction relief proceedings and defendants denied him those papers for over a year narrowly and only applies to cases from which the doctrine acquired acquired its name namely cases brought by state court losers complaining of injuries caused by state court judgments rendered before district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments consistent with the elements enumerated in acts on and cited favorably by the supreme court in acts on this court in no well has already established  allegedly erroneous decision by a state court and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that erroneous decision if by contrast a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong the illegal acts or emissions of adverse parties then rooker feldman does not apply this is true even if a plaintive seeks relief from a state court judgement such a suit is not a forbidden  has occurred and that a predisposition remedy should have been afforded and remedies are appropriate when you can predict that the deprivation can occur and even temporary deprivations come within the purview of the due process cla e defendants can point point to no competing governmental interest that justifies denying him a pretty provision hearing there was no need for immediate action these were not negligent acts or the unauthorized acts by defendants these were intentional acts and mr logan as the head of a p d s is the you know state court authority state authority who has the power to effectuate the deprivation at issue exchange boxes for mr alaska i thought the gist of the peer court judge that was hand the second one that was handling the matter was very concerned about the security of the documents so he was concerned about the the documents so he was there be no interference with later on there would be no claim that somebody had messed with the documents so he was concerned about the mitigation and investigative materials mccloskey in his hearty place those documents and there those  supposed to be in the storage locker it was just the thirty boxes that held mr vasquez's papers the judge was not concerned about the security of those thirty boxes if you read his order he was just concerned about the mitigation investigative materials and we sort of separate security location that was interfering with his right to those documents and subsequently ended up interfering with his ability to access those documents yes or the public defender state actors for purposes of nine hundred eighty three mistake and it's confusing and here we have an experienced lawyer trying to figure out what the right thing to do is that sounds like qualified immunity to me but mr vasquez has a very clearly established writers property we're talking about papers they're specifically enumerated in the fourth amendment but the problem is we understand his right to the papers but he might be represented he might not be represented we've got a conflict well the sister is not his lawyer and he may be represent this time so in terms of what the right means in the context of the facts here that's the confusing part i understood so when mr logan first seized the storage locker he did not do it because he was attempting to protect the property or that he knew anything flask as did receive counsel he continued to interfere with that access the court ordered that the key be turned over to his new counsel and logan refused because he didn't like the terms because it had to occur in the jail in front of m as it led to a hearing on the matter at that hearing mr logan suggested that the court do absolutely nothing and he also saw suggested that anyone who entered the storage locker would become a witness in the civil suit including mr attorney which would have created a conflict with his attorney so these are not individuals who are concerned about safety pin property or returning it to mr velazquez because that the opportunities they had to return it to him they never did so at the end of the day let's say you go back to just record and proceed with your suit what damages so mr velazquez has sought compensatory and punitive damages and what are they so he is alleged mental and emotional distress which is a it's an injury recognized under section one thousand nine hundred three and his own testimony about the mental emotional stress of losing potentially the only copies of documents he has but the documents are intact we all agree on that right correct but he's also seeking injun there is there is there enough of a threat that this might happen to him again just to relieve his appropriate understood and for for injunctive relief you know as i said voluntary sation of behavior is not enough the defendants have a heavy burden to show that this unconstitutional behavior is unlikely to reasonably occur well you're beginning to overlap your argument entitlement thank you your honor may it please the court my name is sean moore and i'm here representing defendant michelle mccloskey i want to take four minutes and reserve the remainder of my time for my co defendants i'm going to talk about record feldman but the first thing i want to do is put this case in context this is not a has ever asked for his files and was denied that access rather he only asked that who the coding of those files be transferred from the office of the public defender's to his family and he alleges that  defendants failure to turn those files over to his family is a constitutional violation now turning to rick or feldman this whole discussion of a one step versus two step test is irrelevant i believe the night of the dispute is plaintiff's argument that there cannot be a de facto appeal without an explicit challenge or an explicit stating that a state court made it legal or factual error and we do not believe that such an explicit challenge to the state court ruling is necessary for there to be a de facto appeal and there is good ninth circuit law that says that this is not the case both the cooper and roofs are cases that a case that federal case or federal action can be a de facto appeal without actually explicitly challenging a state court action and they consider this because well and there are several ninth court ninth circuit cases that have said you look more to the relief sought by an action rather then the allegation stated by an action to determine whether or not there de facto appeal now if you look at the relief sought in this appeal or in this action what mr velazquez is alleging is that it was inherently a constitutional wrong for defendants to maintain the files within the storage locker that was obtained  specifically to house those files rather than transfer in custody of the files over to his family and in order to find that that was in fact a constitutional wrong this court or the district court must necessarily  undercut judge reyes is order specifically stating that access of the files is limited to limited to the defense team rather than anyone else and the fact of the matter is once specific to defend it once there was a conflict with her representation of mr glascock she was no longer a member of the defense team she was no longer able to access those files now in i don't know where this is in the lawsuit looking at what they did after the order was in  place could you repeat that your honor i just don't understand i don't understand the worker feldman argument here because i see the allegations in the complaint what he's complaining about are the actions after the order was in place correct yeah this is it well the order was in place before he well i mean it that what they're what they're saying is or what mr glascock is arguing is that the actions taken pursuant to that order and within the confines of that order are necessarily unconstitutional and in order to find that the actions taken pursuant to that order unconstitutional then the order itself must be wrong or legally incorrect or factually incorrect the fact that i mean a court order on its own about me and we have also all sorts of one thousand three cases for example when there's a guardianship or in place in the guardian there's some damage that occurs with a guardian or something like that i mean these these are the they don't relate to the state court order necessarily that you don't immunize your client just because you have an obviously a court order in place it's not appealing they're not seeking to overturn the order well in order to find that defendants acted improperly they must there must be an inherent finding or at least it's our position that there must be an inherent finding that the state court order was in some way wrongful because mr glass has never a defendants did anything outside the realm of what judge races order mandated and in order for their conduct to be wrongful that inherently must mean that judge races order was wrongful so we believe that as long as there is of the possibility that defendants could be found liable that's necessarily an indictment of judge races order and a statement that the contents of his order was inherently wrongful unless you have further questions for me i'd like to see the remainder of my time to my c  with mr logan so for example the taking of the documents to from florence to the storage locker that was not in conjunction with the state actor they did that on their own in compliance with the court order of course  and actually in compliance with the arrangement that mr last gets agreed to and didn't raise any objection to you in that in that hearing he was represented by mr talent has his counsel they propose this arrangement where the boxes would come to mccloskey i believe i think the complaint is that her return as the key to mr logan or the i d p s who paid for it is responsible for the storage locker is somehow done in concert with mr logan who they argue is the state state actor again first of all this is not a prohibited action because mr glascock doesn't have any possessory interest in the key itself his complaint is access and as my colleague argued he was never denied access he to mr logan per court order and because mr logan's office is responsible for that he was not a joint action that was done to take a prohibited action unconstitutional action mist of alaska as his attorney has listed about six cases in her brief to support this joint action theory but not one of them did the court find that there was an actual joint action to find that a private actor acted under color of state law and in fact collins versus woman care which is the ninth circuit case and again in that case they did not find there was joint action but the court laid out that the test for this is that there has to be a substantial degree of cooperation in the prohibited action that the state has to so far insinuate itself into a position of interdependence with the alleged joint actor that it must be recognized as a joint participation participant in the challenge activity there are no facts here to suggest that there is such a level of substantial cooperation between the state and mrs mccloskey or mrs hardy in fact mr mccluskey and hardy's involvement in this case is so minimal we're looking at two things transferring of boxes to the fourth avenue jail which was not done in concert with the state actor and returning the key and neither of those complained of actions can support the critical what i believe is a critical time line in this case the change in the dynamic that judge ray is set up started on june five two thousand and thirteen when mr alaska's for the first time says hey i want to change who has the access the manner of accessing the storage locker that's when mr logan and i believe the other defendants first become aware that he wants this change a mere six days later mr logan and mr of alaska's are on the phone at which time mr alaska's asks and mr logan agrees to review judge ray as this court order the interesting thing about that is the position that mr that mr logan had take for six days that hey i need to get a court help me figure this out i'm not sure who has access to him and then after reading the order saying hey somebody specifically was given that access now i really need the court to tell me who's going to have access to this was consistent during both periods of time and also the in terms of their after mr velazquez files a motion in state court seeking to have that access changed that motion is heard by eight thirteen two thousand and thirteen at which time judge welty makes a determination as to those motions there's actually two of them and the determination is we will take that up once the determination to be a relative to what  representing yourself or whether you'll have somebody represent you i would politely i think i know where you come out on the worker feldman doctrine but very politely i would suggest that that order could be the order is the order upon which  we've we have not applied in a long time in this kind of context but you have some good arguments on the merits so let me move turn let me move those very very quickly there's one factual predicate that i'd ask you to i know you've reviewed it once but i'd ask you to review the game because it's worthy of you and it's the phone call m makes to mr logan because two really important things happened there one mr of alaska's ed mitts that what he wants to do by getting access is to control not actually get that the files but to control him he has a discussion with with mr logan about there having been problems with the legal file and he wants to make sure it doesn't happen with his files the other thing it does is in that discussion mr logan confirms that he's only holding on to the access to make sure nobody gets in there chill of court decides moving on to the specific subset of constitutional basis your honor the reason why there's no fourth amendment issue here is there was no unreasonable or breaches of other statutory regulation regulatory standards that motivation matter there's a quote actually why do you need motivation to he just needs your i don't believe so not under not under this circuit ruling in the absent case there has to be some some act drek to towards either promoting some well some act to promote some government interest in this or benefit i'm sorry government benefit or interest three i would state it yeah i think it's an either or proposition i'm not sure is a huge difference between the two but to the extent there is i would agree with both yes but would you try to split out unlawfulness from seizure and you want to say there's no seizure that stuff to me goes to whether it's on lawful seizure but i don't think there was any on awfulness either your honor that's a different argument right but he is controlling access and denying access to others that sounds to me like a seizure he's not denying any access to  pending the resolution of the dispute about the key well and i don't want to be facetious about it but but because he's a convicted murder with a capital sentence he's not accessing that storage locker there's and there's nothing in the record safeguard my papers was exactly what mr logan was doing in terms of the unreasonable this is the conduct your honor in the mendez case if the intrusion against the  government's interest or that i'm sorry the person's interest in their papers is justified by an equal interest it's not reasonable i'm not sure you can say as a matter of law but that was my comment on unreasonable as in terms of qualified there was any time soon as you're taking or something and i apologize i don't mean interrupt you're on i think if you're if you assume this was a deprivation then there was actually a pre deprivation determination by judge well to i mean if if not allowing m to have access to the access keys to access files is the deprivation there was a pretty deprivation hearing it just as mr alaska's agreed with that deprivation and then when that the structure of fell apart with i can't tell you that personally i wasn't in court and you leave on their papers that you want to appear to several of the hearings though i believe you appeared at all of them but i just can't tell you of my own knowledge and is the office of public defender still continuing to represent mr of alaska it a couple points i would like to clarify first by judge ray is order mr of alaska's controlled his property the defense counsel was not allowed to go into the storage locker whenever they wanted they went in there w velazquez asked them to exchange the documents for him that was the entire purpose of mr of last cases of that order mr glascock controlled access to his property and mr glascock in the call with mr mr logan made it very clear that he was not going to allow anybody access to this storage locker so he did not make requests to exchange boxes because defendants made it clear that any attempts would be futile he then instead immediately went to state court seeking redress and he was not given a provision hearing judge will he did not address these issues judge welty you know deferred making any determination deferring it terminations determination is not the same as actually boxes from the locker to his prison cell that was the seizure but it hid their actions when he called them and said would you please return my mitigation investigative materials as it is right as the client to have his client file and and they were a few they called mr logan who is a state actor under this court's decision and brand of the clark county and followed his advice in refusing to grant him that the access when he requested the storage key they asked mr logan what to do and they refused to they did not return the key to mr logan and mr logan called them and demanded that they go to the storage locker to retrieve the key because the key was being held at the storage locker so their actions were all done at the direction of mr logan who is not bound by the by the ethics of an attorney client relationship if there are no further questions we would ask that this court reverse and remand the district court's decision thank you thank you counsel thank you for your pro bono representation thank you all for coming up from phoenix to argue today on the case just argued be submitted for decision