is the questions of the law before this court can be separated generally into two overarching issues st is the district court's error in denying reopening of the heaviest petition where mr r get his claims regarding recognize that mr get it was bringing the same substantive claim for relief of prolonging detention claim under the th amendment due process clause and secondly that the district court had properly acquired jurisdiction at the time of filing of the initial hevia us and that the supreme court's precedent and olympe india tell us that jurisdiction is not later lost by the government's decision to transfer petitioner out of the district because the same due process d claims that were presented in the district of new jersey and for which the district of new jersey acquire jurisdiction have not been adjudicated on the merits and the supreme court tells us that therefore the district of new jersey or not i apologize if the briefing that was submitted in connection with the most injury open addressed different issues than the briefing that was addressed in the original petition didn't it it only explain a little what i mean there is that the claims for relief as the respondent concedes in their briefing as well initially he beat us petition raise to legal claims st was under the due process clause whether mr a got his detention had become one reason they prolonging and then the nd whether or not immediate release was the appropriate remedy so that it has always been the issue what we had to address when we were back with the motion to reopen isn't is a thing that came up in the district courts original decision on the b s in october of two thousand and nineteen which is about the be a statute that the immigration authorities  petition with new grounds being asserted because your honor but this court case law tells us that it is the same due process and now due process analysis that is put into place when there are these th amendment claims of prolong years certainly less than the six years we're we're facing here but in that case he was going back and forth between section one hundred and twenty two million six hundred and twelve thousand three hundred and eighteen was not an issue for this court in order to make its decision which ultimately in that case the decision was to order immediate release be granted so again i appreciate that was very helpful thank you but in this case i guess what i'm trying to understand is you're sad that dialing a petition in louisiana where he is currently house would not be appropriate because his claims had not yet been adjudicated in new jersey but that what the judge in new jersey did deny the original petition at what point are those claims adjudicated such then also sort of the practical implications of sort of following in chasing after go the multiple transfers but as to the st question b district court made very clear in its decision a procedural determination and the court simply said again at this time it was dismissing without prejudice the request for immediate release and it was sort of further explaining the reason for its decision was that despite the heebie as petition having been sitting with the court for seven months now the statute out of detention had changed slightly and and the court felt it was not quite yet right but in ninety days it would be in the parties should come back and this isn't is very clear under the case of the bets not a substantive decision on whether or not there is a violation of mr r get his due process rights for his six years in immigration detention that was just simply a procedural decision and the supreme court it's for the very clearly that motions to reopen are and are important procedural safeguards and he b s cases so certainly motions reopen are used throughout civil procedure but there are especially important in the he b s contacts and gonzalez the court gives us confines to look at right and gives us a little bit of structure and that is where we get this proposition that a motion to reopen is the proper procedure of vehicle if the initial his decision was not decided on the merits and then secondarily if the petitioner continues to bring the same substantive legal claims and we need both of those requirements here which is why also distinguished in the district courts there are two ways to bring these who claims if i may call it as such the court makes clear that of course as guerrero and as set forth by this as part of a prolonged detention claim one of the factors is you look at conditions of confinement and so this is what we're doing in this case we're saying and we're saying there are exceptional circumstances an immediate release is warranted the other way they can come up and we see this is that for people who cannot bring prolonged detention claims maybe they're newly detained you know they haven't met the six month threshold that has been great tells us about they can still raise cope with concerns under separate  due process claims saying that because of their medical vulnerabilities the th amendment says that their conditions confinement are now punitive so this is a very separate basis that the district  based on where the person is being held that clean would be your honor because you're looking at the conditions in the opposite of what we are bringing about here your honor we're simply pointing out that mr r got to has very serious medical issues that are documented in the honor that and it certainly was not in the before the district court as well but this is art to your point your honor the coleman claims were just additional facts we don't need we were not asking the court to look at what is the facility here doing we were just saying from the beginning asked for immediate release and that is still our claim here in this case your honour's and that we wanted to bring to the court's attention sort of to document in the record that we are also bringing these claims during the cold in one thousand dollars condemning where mr get has been or abilities and it supports our reasoning that he should be immediate really released we're not separately challenging what any particular already was doing or not doing in regards to is confinement we're still arguing that his detention by immigration judge judge ask us can't direct that person to do anything there is no one in the judge's jurisdiction whom he can direct to give the relief that you are seeking out as a practical matter i'm trying to understand how this the decision there was someone and the court specifically said that the secretary of war was under that court's jurisdiction and could give the relief that was being request even though the person had have anybody new jersey big can deal with louisiana the attorney general looks like it may not be the proper defendant so who is in so who can deal with the who can where to whomever is currently holding mr gotta and even if he gets transferred again so i think we need to very carefully start with the supreme court's decision and to dia and look at the context because the  does rely on this is quite heavily through its brief who dio repeatedly throughout the period excuse me throughout the court's decision makes clear that it's referring to the proper party to be named at the time of filing the court was concerned with when does a when does the district court acquire jurisdiction remember in pedia the case was filed in the southern district of new york when the petitioner had already left that jurisdiction so very different set of circumstances here and the supreme court made clear that we are talking about the awarding of the facility has to be named at the time of filing and that that person must be in the court's jurisdiction and that is how the district court a that this the judge was incorrect here that judge vasquez had jurisdiction now the case comes back to judge vasquez would appear that there are two options either try to find somebody in new jersey who might have the ability to order a release or whatever if that were ultimately the case or simply transfer the case to louisiana with the nd option be the most pragmatic your honor two to answer that that last question st would that be the most pragmatic i would say no because for a multiple reasons st is what if we get to louisiana and then the government has decided they want to move him again to mississippi or again to tex you can do i think to some extent what was done in new york and it wasn't heated maybe it wasn't noticed but don't move it in order of the court he stays where he is then transfer the a b a section to counsel has been if we are going to issue a pause in one particular place it makes the most practical sense to do that in new jersey remain and it certainly the court could issue an order for mr got to be to be brought back to new jersey and the court would stay there and i would offer the case then had to go through minnesota went up to the th circuit and the th circuit said no it needed to go back under this long line of case law and be heard in the middle district of pennsylvania where jurisdiction have properly started and so now years later this person is still detained having having the the the case heard and awaiting his day in court and that's something we need to avoid here as your honour's i believe can follow from those the supreme court case was a jurisdiction was proper in the district of new jersey in the court has said that under the court's heaviest powers if the court acquire jurisdiction and has the court can that is issue any orders in accordance with the reds and then and then we will find any appropriate official who and make affect of the orders of the court but certainly the claims are right for review the district court has the power to issue this order and it is properly before the district mean i don't have the i don't know why he was transferred to louisiana i i would believe that that would have to do with him an obligation that's louisiana when it's when they're getting ready to ship somebody out and the flights often leave from louisiana so at least that's been my experience in the past but at this point it looks like there's fourteen transfers between could claim arose out of a facility in louisiana and out of conditions get a facility in louisiana and any effect of a nd circuit stay on and the ability for for for the government to detain him rose when he was detained at a facility in louisiana a little reading ask you this just from a practical perspective mr america are you suggesting that every time somebody moves t have to refile the hades petition in the jurisdiction where they're being held no is there what are you suggesting or whatever what i'm suggesting here is if if he had been transfer her th amendment due process so that would be the argument as i understand appellant is making is wasn't decided on the merits it was decided on rightness issues and the judge invited them to come back so it wasn't it wasn't decided and that the issues are the same so take those each and tell me what your response please him in that regard what i want what i would say is that to the i mean to the extent that the judge had discretion to reopen a previously closed hippias petition given the given the facts here the worst move all there was no abuse and discretion to decline to reopen when he would be when there were factors such as he exercising jurisdiction over a detention facility that fell beyond the borders of his jurisdiction so in and also the fact that the detention because the detention related claims relate to facts that that the judge didn't say he was exercising his discretion and you know saying i have jurisdiction and i'm going to transfer to the judge that i don't have jurisdiction so what is the basis for your argument that the judge had discretion in what he was doing it seems to me the judge was saying i don't have a choice i don't have jurisdiction and that's exactly what is  type of crime was committed here which the person i think at ninety six months why not just say look if the confinement more than six months in this case over six years is unreasonable and it's under  all that the detainees gets is an individualized bond hearing and the government has a chance but we're clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is necessary and it would look like you have a really good and that's where it should come back to again record it still has two options it could could try to deal with it or can find somebody that can well maybe three options maybe order that the petition to be brought back to new jersey maybe to see if there's somebody in new jersey that couldn't force an order if there were to be release or simply this is a i hereby transfer the matter to the easy out of my guess is it likely would be the rd option you might get what you're looking for by a different route now i think the problem that judges have with what you're suggesting here is that if we rule in your favor the government can continually heat jurisdiction simply by transferring the petitioner all around and in this case i don't think you necessarily want that type of press attention to somebody who's been given fourteen different transfers over six years in four states and x number of facilities without a hearing without a hearing well i would it doesn't look good well i understand the facts are not favorable for the government i would like that that is true but it isn't  want to just create a mass quite frankly in terms of folks filing you know haste petitions assoon as they arrive in a facility because they might be transferred in a month and if we shouldn't moving targets here all the time another jurisdiction and then from that other jurisdiction that person tried to get of for sed a b s cord to reopen the case and decide issues that happened outside of in detention for more than four years i think it's closer to six without a hearing on the length of his detention is that right if i recall properly from from the record i would have to verify this but i believe that he may have received some hearings and i cannot be as if they are but he had a hearing but it was years  ago yeah it wasn't it wasn't you know it wasn't here pursuant to to our recent this record that is correct ok and are you saying the only way he can get such a hearing is to have  movement that's my understanding ok so isn't it important that we find a way for him to i'm not saying that he's going to be released but to have a hearing where someone who can look at the facts and determine whether he should be released on bond whether he's a candidate for that or is it isn't it important that someone has jurisdiction and if he's if he's a moving request for a bond because he was a flight risk d and a danger to the community what would possibly change that your honor if i can make clear that the heaviest was filed in two thousand and fifteen in the southern district of new york and the southern district ordered on a bond hearing be heard that the detention was unclear right and at the hearing the immigration judge at that time determined that there was correct that's correct so but my point here is given the particularly violent nature of the two thousand and seven offense for which he got ninety six month sentence how can what makes you think that satisfied by rubber stamp denials based on temporarily distant offenses and again what the court reminds us is that we are not looking here at a print someone's criminal confinement we're talking about civil detention and that is why in her this person isn't going to get out for one or two or both reasons flight risk and danger is the community version or we are very prepared for if this case goes back we are ready to have mr get his day in court and certainly over the years we've been working extensively he has worked very closely with a social worker in our office he's completed many programs through his facility he's been in contact with his psychologists and has been under necessary  appropriate medication so we certainly have twenty of evidence that we are ready and prepared to submit when mr gotta get is this day in court and maybe even begun right today the primary evidence would be covert conditions and there may  be significantly not good in louisiana or wherever mr bartlett will be but we don't know if he's been vaccinated we don't know if there's been a significant  dilution in the number of covered cases in the facility that is so the whole lot of things that we don't know and yet always hanging out there is if i were to release this person i would feel uncomfortable is precisely why remain and is appropriate because the actual record has not yet been developed and none of these issues have been have been addressed and of course that's something that will be appropriate we considered by the immigration court and so this is not something that the court here under the case law needs needs to concern himself with and it's also exactly why we were thinking through these constitutional civil prolonging detention cases mr got has already served his time in the criminal sentence the criminal court found it sufficient that by this point he would be out in a community so we're not just talking about someone's civil detention at what point after six years is there unconstitutionally prolonged and about the fact that if i may your honor what w  arguments in support of our request for immediate release to allow us to make those arguments and be heard by the district court again because as this court has found in other cases where the tension has risen to four years that's an appropriate that's an claim that his civil detention has become one constitutionally prolonged runners if there are no further questions we've asked that the decision of the district court be vacated and in light of the length of detention in this case remain ended with an order for an expeditious hearing to