brown county indiana an authorized if we break down what happened here we begin with the letter of may thirty one two thousand and thirteen do we have the letters in the record we do not why not that is an excellent question that question for both of you an excellent question availability those letters certainly go ahead and we don't have them out so let me thirteen letter which is the beginning of everything advises the plaintiff that he should take corrective action on his mother subject field or though meeting recommend further several reasons why your honor because the letter itself doesn't indicate what needed to be done doesn't indicate why there was some sort of difference here what does not indicate give him any time to its responsibility i believe so however the timing aspect of this is curious because two weeks later without anything else without anything else going on then the letter comes out and says well we are now revoking your license and i'm not sure that even in two weeks he could have obtained further information or made further inquiry that he didn't honor the letter itself being is an i q is an open ended as it was would not put him on any alert that he had a time certain to do anything let alone what the issue or the problem was there's been some related state court litigation hasn't there i'm not certain about the ordinance your honor i'm not certain that you are so you don't know anything about it no  the the the plaintiff apparently dropped claims against individual defendants is a right i had the one claim against mr canard who was the commissioner that was trying to of the second amended complaint i believe that intentional interference with a business basically elevation that he hasn't asserted any individual constitutional claim against mr quinn are not all that was a stately ok so you're limited to an l theory then right ok  who's the policymaker one question at a time that the policymaker here i am not certain in terms of the the county health board you have mr page who wrote the letter you said that mr pate said he's going to meet an ordinance that provides for revocation without a procedure is a policy that's basically inviting due process for the ordinance section five of three of the local ordinance is rather  bland and it does state to the effect that we can remove you from doing this for demonstrated inability or unwillingness to comply with these rules and requirements that is fairly open ended  know it minutely so but we have a situation here where we have this initial letter coming out and then without anything else they're saying this is revoked so whether this is i think the point here too is once this begins by this may thirty one letter right the state then had some sort of ability to hold a pretty depravation her if because they this was not the type of circumstance that was outside of what the state would not have any sort of advanced knowledge or notification of now the district court did believe that this was basically a random or rogue action and perhaps that might be perceived by the second letter but we have a situation here with the first letter says seems to be within the confines of state action rules correct due to what that phrase these rules referrers that's another big point sure our goods is i'm reading these ordinances i don't know that that gives any guidance to anybody that's working within the county ok thank you save your time do process your your honor what we would argue is whether you view this as random or authorized or whether you view this as a governmental mr summary governmental administrative action based on public health whether you view it under you not contending there was an emergency or you in this case granted i will admit the the complaint is very vague but when you have an installer breaking into a septic tank you have raw sewage flowing out if that happens then you've got somebody who needs to be responded to but i don't see anything on this record remotely justifying summary emergency action without even an opportunity to be heard do you on this record no based just on their complaints you know all you have this in action by the public board of health taking of safety position of revoking this life and reason why it would be if you have an installer coming in and breaking open a septic tank without pumping and allowing raw sewage to go all over the ground and causing health problems but only if let's talk about random in an authorized ok what it does the does the county contend that any county officials violated any state or local laws in this connection we do know so in what sense would this have been authorized to the extent plaintiff is arguing that there was no notice if if this court would view this that there was no notice that the may thirty first letter the letter well we you didn't put it was emotionally right here i did not put it with the motion ok so there's no deadline there's no reflection of any opportunity to be heard no process identified no specific remedial action identified how is that notice an opportunity to be heard given the record we have the record the record we have which says a letter going on may thirt or you will be recommended that your license we revoke we are gathered here presumably in a meeting at which he would have an opportunity to be heard right we would argue that's not necessary that following that letter you don't necessarily need a hearing that at least you have a notice and then the action is not taken right away you're given fourteen days and that would be an opportunity to respond how does he know you're one that's coming based on their complaints  based on the complaint you just know that remedial action needs to be taken and nothing about a process or ok let me ask or the consequences of not responding in fourteen days right well the consequence would be losing the license and that that they do state in the complaint that i don't know doesn't is a possibility and without any deadline right yeah what if he was on vacation and didn't  gets the background here and to kind of figure out what the county says certain changes is what simpson be responsible for something that was happening on his mother's her pretty shouldn't  dance your question she did receive a notice and she had hired her son and he had caused the problem there actually was a hearing before this letter even went out there was a letter sent to the mother which caused her property to be deemed uninhabitable but because the cause of the problem was the installer notice was sent out saying that if you don't fix this problem you're going to lose your license and if there was a prop if if simpson believe the nose he received was improper or he didn't know what was there can you direct us to any authority that suggests that if there's been a deprivation of property without due process of law a remedy without damages is fish and i would direct you to the pro stewart is that at least in my view your brief in the district courts analysis profoundly misread parrot and hudson and that line of cases  offer and try to extend them to situations in which they could not possibly apply without wiping out essentially all due process of law since prof let's suppose for example we had a summary  suspension and then revocation of a medical license or a lot since the fact that you can get judicial review later on is not adequate if you didn't get a meaningful notice an opportunity to write or if you're a policeman who's been suspended and then fired for a teacher those are part of the due process and if you don't even trying to get judicial review then you are not taking advantage of the due process and you can use it entitled to a prior notice in an opportunity to be heard unless you've got a an emergency so urgent that there's not even time to be heard and we would argue that he has pled the notice and has pled that it actually did not take place for another fourteen days so he has pled the notice and an opportunity to be heard any and any case law that suggests much of a vague letter without deadlines or process identified as sufficient we don't know the terms of the letter neither plaintiff nor the defendant your client sent it right we sent i can tell you that the letter said this is what you need to do if you don't take this action these specific actions like pumping the tank yeah then you're going to lose your license with a deadline the deadline was you have to do the next day but that was the deadline the letter following and remember the letter was following a wire hearing that occur were you referred to you allude is something like that in your brief my my problem here is even if you wind up prevailing ultimately on some other ground to affirm this order we would have to do an awful lot of damage to due process lot seems to me i think what the court would just need to look at is the part dealing with the post deprivation and that if you can review it so take the teacher take the doctor write that if you do not take advantage of the post deprivation procedures that are afforded you then you have not claimed element of a due process clause so there can never be a due process claim for deprivation of property without prior notice an opportunity to be heard as long as there is some post deprivation process not necessarily and that's why we tried to argue that he needs to talk drafted the complaint saying well maybe you know i had this maybe i didn't i don't know if i did it's an adequate it's so vague that he is well no it's that's a look that's a product of some of the confusion in the district court about par submit the letters or if you tan do that at least let us know that you can't lee damaged those are the cases that form the basis for what is random and unauthorized and therefore where a state cannot predict that there's going to be some action cannot give notice and therefore what is would take the form of adequate remedial work we don't know how long it was going to be given we don't know who was going to review they were the remedial work to see if it was adequate why is it that it was involving his mother's property there's a lot of questions here and your be and common law administrative review is not sufficient because the key point is still an adequate where he meaningful post up of a should remedy having a man lose his license livelihood for up to a year and then the only thing he can do is seek reinstatement of his license when he didn't receive notice or a hearing that's not at us th