our argument is that their civil rights were violated under the violated under the th and th amendment of the united states constitution and with respect to the the issue of how they were evicted and whether or not they had their lawful rights were followed concerning their affection under new york city will the lure is very very clear in new york city civil court had expired or vacated a new five day notice of of the action must be served in this case that's exactly what happened there was an eviction an order a vixen there was a notice of five day something in the marshal's handbook yes on those things cited in your brief no i don't believe they are you ok putting aside your brief and without waves anything where do we find things like this and what if i actually have something that i election right yes absolutely basically i think your process within the state court system on this question as to whether you should have had a nd notice of action well i don't think that's the issue i think the issue before the district court was does that elevate to a level of violation of civil rights i don't necessarily know if the dispute here with respect to the district court is whether or not there is such a law in fact the marshals the marshals  the share supervisor in our papers told me that the evaluated the rules when he didn't issue the nd notice but there was nothing they could do about it after the fact so i don't think the issue before the district court is whether or not there was a failure to provide this five day additional notice the issue is whether or not that elevates up to the level that it violates the civil rights in our argument is very simple on this and that is that this is not a mysterious thing this is not just given a piece of paper when you were the person this is a five day notice that tells the people in five days we're going to come in take out these people were aware of the fact that they needed five days warning before they were going to take it out they didn't have the five days it needed and have to stop moved out  apartment and it caused substantial damage this is not you know a technical you or i do want to come back to the technical issue though in a sense because i thought after reading the briefs that the issue took this  form there is a rule that is unquestionably a part of new york state law that says that it's be a five day notice a five day notice is given was given in this case when there was an order of addiction then there was a rather brief stay stay comes off and no further five day notice is given and as i read the briefs i thought oh there's an open question of state law as to whether the five a new five day notice has to happen  but now you're telling me that it's not an open question at all because there are things that are not part of something that the state legislature enacted but is a rule of the city court i don't know i haven't seen it and i don't know where to find it and i don't know whether it has the same status as our daves that is as a legislative an act and and something in the marshal's him book which i also don't know that has any  force of law at all so i'm just curious about what you know what are those things that you're now relying on even as to whether as a matter of new york state law a new five day notice was hand up what i have here and it spells it out very clearly it talks about that there was a marshall handbook that said there had to be a subsequent notice and then it said the quote on to clarify the requirements to quote on january th two hundred two thousand six the new york city civil court issued the following directive and it goes into the fact that it an additional  the this notice is critical to the tenants whites in terms of being lawfully evicted they have the right to notice it's an important issue and it's all right that's given to them by the city of new york it was violated by the marshal given to them by the city of new york to civil i is there is this a violation of the th amendment to unreasonably enter the apartment that the one thing we know for sure is that these folks had no right to be there anymore now that maybe the officer violated some directive of the city court and should have been held in contempt for it but why does that give why does that make it an unreasonable while it's apartment yeah well that's the set that is the nd cause of action and that is that we went back and got a court order that allowed them to go back and secure their necessities from the apartment and that's the nd issue in this case in that we're arguing that the this sergeant who came on the scene prevented them from taking their necessities to court said that  the problem is that what happened here is the tenants went to we got a court order that allowed them to go back to the apartment to take the necessities they went to the precinct they were escorted to the apartment by police officers they had a walk smith that came in and allowed them to get into the premises they went in to take their necessities then lead chen the landlord ran and got somebody that he probably knew from the  precinct to sausage and he came down with him and then the sergeant was just saying you've got to put this stuff back you've got to put that stuff back he was not even from the precinct that was in control of this he came down with lead che  the localities have to follow the right to due process and there's a federal right to sue for the civil rights violations based on the violation of the statement or the order of the state court who know is there an allegation as to what it is what precisely are the species of property as i read it was just saying the sergeant showed up and put some things back right and our argument is that the complaint says that the plaintiffs only took out necessities the sergeant made them take back things that they had taken out and our argument is if they only took out necessities and the stuff that they took back in their car the sergeant said you had a port back and doesn't say what they took no exactly you are elevation that what they took her necessities right well all argument is that if the complaint says they only took necessities and the sergeant unlawfully made them put back the necessities that they took that would be sufficient to sustain a motion to dismiss the complaint the issue that you're addressing your honor would be an issue that would be determined is this what is it is mr chen on this apartment or did he rent it from i believe his brother owns his apartment and he was he was he was using it at the right from respect to that is that he aided and abetted these violations and that's why he's charged by the way there is also a pending case in supreme court state in new york so in him for unlawful conversion so not representing all the other that's right your honour's i mean a junker on behalf of the city i wanted to raise age restriction issue before we go far and i apologize i only noticed during my preparation for argument but actually the notice of appeal only appeals from part of the order of the order granting the defendant the city of new york's motion to dismiss so under  le three talent can decide the kind of scope of their appeal and i believe this might raise an issue as to the claims against the individual officer and the individual sheriff i have a couple of cases on that if  that there is or are you that there is a jurisdictional defect with respect to our jurisdiction to hear the appeal of  says the defendant the city of new york it doesn't say the defendants the city of new york the share of oh i see the individual officer and those are different claims it's not just mr chen it's also mr jordan is actually properly a part of that because he separately appeals only be raising the defendant city of new york's motion and not from the others i have a couple of cases when an appellant decides to narrow the scope of their appeal in their notice of appeal if that would help the court  merits which i'm happy to just as well i think there's a couple of things going on st as i think this court should affirm as to both the individual officer and the individual sheriff as to the sheriff he executed lawful court order of addiction the federal constitutional right with respect to have actions and as the bridgeforth case shows it's about it is a question of whether or not there's a court order of action is sort of state procedural issues are not constitutionalized and so there's not a section eight hundred and eighty three claim on that basis also the thirds amendment claim is a claim about procedural due process or something of the process in either event those claims fail because there is both adequate deprivation relief here there was a massive amount of litigation in state court there was a hold over proceeding there was this order to show cause there was a post deprivation the order should cause i'm sorry as opposed to a probation remedy because they also were able to go back to court and say see procedures were followed please give us a media access and with that i can turn to the individual officers posed to the depth to the sheriff which is the order to show cause and then order to show cause submit is actually being misread a little bit which is if you look at in the record on page seventy eight there's a notation on the cover so louis works in order to show cause he's petitioner comes in he's typed up this requested relief and there's a return date set so this thing this came in on on the th of december as you can see from the top of it and then the return date is set for the th and that's when they will show cause for why the rest of this order should or should not be given and in fact that later was denied and the only relief that again there was a lot of those deprivation process with that as well because they from the return the following day the state court based on this same thing and the court was pretty disappointed in the process and said that he's because you had finally been  after considerable in this application makes a mockery of the action because among other things that went in the court later notes they had six hours of unsupervised time to remove items from the property so i think that this dismissals of their course of action we know who the parties are it's not just the city of new york it's the motion by the the city sheriffs and the new york city police department so i think if you read  the notice of appeal and look at it in in totality you'll see that we're repealing the war the notice of appeal says that you're appealing to the nd circuit from an order granting i see the defendant city of new york's motion where there are separate motions made by the city and by the there was just one motion to dismiss as to everyone what i'm saying is if you look at that and then you look at the the decision you'll see show cause and that's an order that's how i see but there's also languages further ordered that the respondent lawrence arabia allowed to immediately return to the premises according to a company by the police and enter the premises to secure property he needs immediately including but not limited to prescription medication and that order is signed by the judge whatever else is there it's not just an order to show up and litigate this that's what the language of the order is right so we're saying that it is necessities but even more importantly than what it is i mean what it what is the significance of handwritten notation says supervised access on a particular date for a particular hour are you suggesting that the order of the respondents to be there on other days they can just go whenever they want now you know now so that's there but then so if that limits the order that it's not just they can go and remove things they get supervised access for a particular hour why isn't the rest of that notation which says for plaintiff to remove med not sure what you're waiting for me i'm looking at page a seventy eight of the appendix which is the handwritten note haitian in the order to show cause now it's interesting it doesn't except for the initials of the judge on the sta next to it it's not very clear who signed this but the i think everyone sort of agreed that this was entered by the judge anyway and that as you just said all the  your clients were entitled to do was to be there on that particular day for that particular hour and if that's so why isn't it also so that they are only allowed to remove meds assuming that that's what that