loss of property including for negligent or intentional taking as well as any claim for physical injury unless the inmate can establish for alleged facts that he's going to suffer death or meaning or some loss of a couldn't establish a violation of due process because the inmate could ultimately turn to some other form of post deprivation taking that taking or that other post deprivation remedy was a state law  m in this case the arizona law has taken away mr price's ability to bring a state law claim and as a consequence the holding that he things the parent resist and hudson versus palmer are basically wanted by the fact that he he can't bring that claim and we come back to the fact that is to mr prices due process rights have been violated what the state has argued that was that they have provided mr price with a post deprivation remedy which is what if there's a fundamental right of state and i would say absolutely you have any authority for that this morning is long settled that a prisoner has a fundamental right of access of course we know that everybody has an  your honor i do know is those cases but not a long line of cases does address more of what affirmative obligations the state must provide to make a prisoners or any individual's right of access meaningful long time ago courts is meaningful and when they say that an inmate or the state must provide prison law libraries legal assistance programs allow them to communicate with each other to discuss maybe it's corpus have under state law now when they say when we want to talks about the tools necessary to challenge the conditions of lincoln's for confinement or to tack one sentence what is things in the context of prison  libraries and these types of things all that the state has to do is provide enough so that a prisoner can do those things challenge the conditions of his country time but most really when you're talking i think about something a little different than what we have here  i understand it your client is asserting what would could best be characterized as an ordinary toward action i don't know if your contention that this was negligence on the part of the state or was it an as well as a breach of contract or a breach of trust really i think to the improper allocation of prison funds and it does highlight the fact that what this law does is take away his ability to bring a claim for both negligent and intentional harm i can appreciate from your client's perspective how he may feel aggrieved but daniels versus williams of a case i'm sure you're familiar with the u s supreme court case is very clear that if you've got a negligence client grieved under those circumstances you're going to i think there are a lot of circumstances in which you well first i would say that there are a lot of negligent takings in which there may be an issue as to whether there is a fundamental right said there is and i appreciate that you're doing an excellent job and i compliment you but i we have to listen to the supreme court a little bit don't you think no i do understand anything runners in focusing on that aspect which is the equal protection aspect i'd like to highlight the fact that this supreme court has held in some degree just under extent that the property rights are the cause of action of the negligent cause of action may not be itself a fundamental right the fact is that acknowledges that to some said that somebody and particular person or must have the ability to resort to some kind of remedy i don't think there's any dispute that the state could negligently take anything without in a context not within the scope of one's employment not within the scope of governmental duties if the if the state just you know negligently destroys mr price his property grossly negligent really destroys mr price's property then there understood that before taking you can't you can't title a person through some kind of hearing but if the person has suffered an injury he must be able to turn the resort to some kind of or a lot of may be true in some circumstances if you're talking about a prisoner here we have all kinds of claims situations where there are immunities we had a case yesterday involving a serviceman there's a first doctor and there's a claim that certain kinds are barred by servicemen is this any different in that sense the arizona law says that the state is immune from these kinds of things you make he actually brought a claim you're here the fact that you are here and arguing this case shells that he has a right to assert the opportunity to bring their claims because of the state does deprive them of anything this law is in essence going to deprive them of that right i'm running out of time on lectures or just a moment for  think you're saying what the court would have done what i'm trying to understand i'm talking about way to really write it in the district court was the issue presented by mr price at the district court level  and for acts committed by state actors only and here is where it's interesting to know that it's really the civil law not to make cases that are most important here surely and i cannot have more rights to bring a tort suit against the government than civilians do or not incarcerate individuals and both this court and the u s supreme court have made it clear that there is not a fundamental right to the government for good reason if there was it would eliminate the well established notion that states may fashion their state their tort law rule because the injury occurred in a foreign country i think that completely undermines the argument made by opponent that somehow the immunity and title meant is limited that only certain kinds of immunity qualify any conditions of incarceration i think it's also important to point out i would disagree with the district court's conclusion when it certified the question to the supreme court that the marriage cases has no precedential state law tort claim we're talking about convicted felons in prison with respect to reputation damage we're talking about economic loss in the case of inmates who are incarcerated obviously not in the workplace if they suffered an injury significant enough to result in significant economic harm nothing would preclude them obviously that would include some extensive bodily injury and most likely would not be barred by the statute and would tort rules is paramount is the primary reason why it would not be possible to provide an unlimited right to the government and toward and here is where the test sort of amended complaint and original complaint and that's in the excerpts of record at pages twenty seven to twenty eight but in addition to that i would like to address a couple of issues that the state emphasized in the judgment that asked me about previously and that this is really state uses you look at the substance of the law and the substance of this law is not to create some kind of immunity for governmental functions by the state's own admission what the purpose of creating this sort of immunity is is just to reduce prisoners are equally disadvantaged by the statute why should a prisoner have more rights than a non prisoner to sue the state for this particular statute only affects prisoners and i only incarcerated persons who cannot bring a lawsuit against the state and this particular statute is that as it applies to those people bars them not by the nature of the governmental conduct or the situation just as your honored referred to in the federal tort claims act yesterday that was not the issue in that case where you were looking at was the context in which the claim arose here the individual is barred simply by the nature of the injury that he or she suffered and that's what the problem with this claim from the state is not trying to say you know we're trying to create a situation where we can act appropriately with discretion without fear of liability we're saying which is barring a whole thread of claims valid or not or invalid just because we want to reduce prison and prison or lawsuits that whether it's failed the strict scrutiny because it impinges upon the fundamental right of access or whether you look at arbitrary cook or capricious standard if you even view this like the statute as an immunity law or whether it feels rational basis it's just more rationally related to the and a legitimate and of reducing what might be will next year argument which is