now there's no doubt in this circuit or anywhere in the united states under under the bounds case that prisoners must have a right of access to courts now the ninth circuit has found that that right can be satisfied either by action as to an adequate law library or by what he had in punitive segregation and he had the ability to name a case if he knew precisely what what he wanted the name of the case or the number of the statute he could tell the law library and they would provide it to him but that was all he had and i think that really doesn't count and said that such a broad systemic overhaul wasn't meant wasn't merited but they didn't hold the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts and the and the supreme court in the us versus casey did find that on an individual basis it was still appropriate to find where the individual was specifically harmed by the denial of access to a lawyer or access to a law library that it was appropriate to intervene and appoint counsel or or guarantee them access meaningful  the impairment of his case was evident he was unable to and to investigate or assert core due process concerns arising from his unique status as a civil detainee now counsel for probably has tried to assert as a some sort of conclusive library none of them addressed the deprivation of core access which is really at issue here nor did any of the this involve a civil detainee which i think is a very significant distinction all of the cases that they rely upon were prisoners now all of these cases have acknowledged that there's a different level of protection there's a fourteenth amendment level of protection as opposed to the eighth amendment protections for prisoners eight minute protection of course merely pertains to protection against cruel and unusual punishment whereas the fourteenth amendment says there can be classic because it's circumstances are so astonishing i think for seven years having never been charged with a crime never been accused of anything civil detainee charged with a visa violation he has been locked up in solitary  cannot be with the system anticipates now of course we're not hear about the fact of his incarceration the detention but i think it does get to the issue of appointment of counsel because the circumstances of his ordeal i think are intricately linked they are the prison officials where he is have been permitted to retaliate with impunity they have been allowed to basically put him away for seven years the bulk of his time in punitive segregation in complete confidence that because he was so deprived of access to legal resources they need never fear legal redress they can basically with these nebulous charges of insolence they can put him away indefinitely where he has no access to a law library no access to a lawyer english is a second language you know he has no legal training and basically he has no way to fight back the one where it says that it has to be complex one factor factor and rand is a little bit more than that in r oppositions you couldn't just conduct fact discovery every time he moved facilities all of his hard won legal research and papers disappeared now she said to his point zero point out that there was never a finding that they were false or not but the fact is these things happen and at the circuit case where they noted that when the rights of of a constitutional dimension are at stake a poor person's access to the federal courts must not be turned into an exercise in futility which is precisely what happened here and to avoid it being an exercise in futility the only solution really base tells us is that the marshal can go to the department of corrections the marshal can go to the former employer and get those records under seal so that we don't need to worry about a security concern mr algernon doesn't have to be claimed to be going on a fishing expedition a directory with the department of corrections find out the address of this never served defendant and actually perfect the service because the marshal is mr runs only reliable sources in the outside world and the case is that the defendant cites actually speak to that those plaintiffs some of them didn't even mention the defendants name just let the marshals do their expected the marshal to do their job others never followed up background question about background things i need to fill the court in on because when counsel was arguing it seemed to get a little mixed up about what we're talking about here there were actually two claims related to two different facilities all of my clients are employees of corrections corporation of america which is a private prison which contracts with at the time with the eye and asked to house detainees mr i was actually had been picked up in las vegas for filing for passing bogus checks and was in it in the process of being deported and was fighting those deportation proceedings when he was incarcerated at the two c facilities he primarily spent his time at the eagle eye detention center which was where the claim relating to the retaliation arose for a very short period of time he was housed in the central arizona detention center in florence which is only about twenty miles from a lawyer that is where the excessive force claim arose and it terms of the defendant's officer lieutenant gerber relates to the excessive force claim officer val as and fred lawrence who is the chief of security lawyer relate to the due process claims your honor is correct this is this is a claim that should be should be analyzed under begins however the case law ere analyzing his rights as a detainee under the constitution the case law is the same however as a federal and as a federal detainee he needs to bring it under transport anyone in any kind of medical distress to an outside hospital or a medical facility outside of restraints that simply bad correctional practice and you will never cancel the answer the question was what educated most of them can read and write and understand english the reason why i say that your arguments not typical is because he says that he has a master two master's degrees in political science and economics from the london school of economics did in this case he was able to actually get by summary judgement on two of the claims and make it to trial and did a fair job that's trial in trying to articulate  know well as a federal claimant they have no claim against correction no federal claim against corrections corporation of america pursuant to the molester versus the us supreme court case a federal inmate cannot sue the the private contractor they can sue the employees of the private contractor but under the moleski case it was is appropriate for c c a not to be a defendant in the action were dismissed for against individual the fairness relating to these two allegations that he did get to trial do you think and he had he had an between the essentially what you have to admit that he would have gotten proper service on a disk that i don't you know i don't know if it had a lawyer i don't know that he would have and i'll tell you i don't think a lawyer could have found that my office didn't find him when we were looking for him that maybe sh lack of imagination on your firm's part well perhaps it does but also you have to also look at the fact that in two thousand and four they were able to get an address we still don't know whether that's the right address on lopez but you can't  it's accurate it's that every year they upgrade their technology after that upgrade their software what i'm saying is we don't know whether even using that same service whether they could have found him in two thousand and two thousand and one i mean that we're just speculating but a lawyer being a lawyer who was not incarcerated one of them proved its chances it has certainly would have improved his chances but again you know i had i asked my paralegal kind of and she couldn't find him so accurate he did they did not go back and look at his employment records what they did was take my our human resources director provided the marshals with the last known address that was in the file i had this file and that was the address that we had the marshals did with what they needed to do and that was follow up with the addresses that they had one in the summer i came i gave them and one that we gave them and when the marshals couldn't find him they had satisfied their due diligence what what he was asking you to do is to force the marshals are to have marshals in every case where they need to find or where there were no witnesses to be found if they can't find him initially they need to employ  for a paint for search engine to try and find him and we don't know what kind of search engine is it that's just a standard that no where in the country has a court required that this court should to try and go out and find people that would that justification for the restraint that had been because he was going to be transported outside of the facility and the federal government requires anytime we transport well he is the beginning of the trial he asked the judge apparently he had some clothes that he wants with requests that he wanted to wear and the judge said that's fine with me just bring a street clothes and then he never did it but had he had a lawyer refused to go in restraints and he admitted that he struggled and fought any admitted that he bit one or more of the officers i think the problem now is getting back to fundamentals we started off with or not i think in some cases if you're talking about the claims are sophisticated enough to get to trial i think the trial judge had a look seriously at getting counsel if he asked for it because of all the problems you're talking about you would have to worry about about him that's basically what you're saying well in saying that he was able to articulate his claims in court and he was he was able to do that the court even at the end of the case when jury instructions were prepared the court  told mr argument what a wonderful job you've done preparing the jury instructions he had no problem filing pleadings and asking for discovery citing the appropriate case law he did just fine i just testimony was duplicative of what's hard mon testified to sir can was a disciplinary officer and her she believed the due process claim and we were trying to get that case done the judge wanted to have it done within four within four days and because everything she had to say with the political moments that i decided not to call or if mr and mr i was given the opportunity if he had said judge i want to have them bring farah can in here not even our employer anymore we had to subpoena her for the trial he had a spring restricted while who was not a even a part in the case because mr argument want credibility issues that would have enabled him to establish his case and one of the things he firmly believes is that he was hated by these guards and that was one of the reasons they retaliated in that they attacked him and i could have come out had he been there and the fact that he was hostile i don't think necessarily cuts against the was hated and that was you know he said a motive perhaps for all of this again there's just this pervasive theory coming out that the fact that there was a trial means that there was a fair trial and really nothing could be further from the truth if you take the time to entire course of the trial and not withstanding any encouraging remarks that the judge may have made to try and buck with his spirits i think it would be really not the case that he had a fair and full opportunity to present his side with respect to  asking for a basic internet search i really don't think that these are herculean efforts that are called for here we were able to find this information in less than five minutes it's the sort of search that we all conduct you know ten times a day if we're looking for a restaurant or a hairdresser and in the modern world of technology it's really the least that we can ask for particularly given the extremely constrained circumstances of the plaintiff here he can't do anything he can't make a phone call he can't look at the internet he can't look at a phone book you can't do anything and three copies of the policy you copy the council but within five days