of should have been do we need to say anything else really to give the district court some guidance on what to require this man and what it was back in this case well and pretty fast if we should and i think you need three actions then he's taken out of the prison system he's taken out of the state court system and he goes to federal court and wanders around there for several years in the meantime he's probably out of prison  as as a policy matter from your standpoint representing these folks would it be wiser to say it should be a ha just your honour's to be honest with you i really haven't even explored that question  addressing crawford but it may be the case that that should have been a nine hundred eighty three action but nonetheless i think mr owen should be given the opportunity to present it as such rather than simply being tossed out of court without any response from the state or any advice from the court that's he have an obligation regardless of whether he's in his b s or a nineteen eighty three and challenging the underlying conviction that it was his  of if the court decides that that the favorable terminations requirement of hacking in private or are applicable in the situation then yes he would have to overturn that disciplinary he doesn't have to succeed and he did how long were his family visitation rights taken away initially your honor they were taken away i believe for ninety days and then they were reinstated when he was transferred to a different six illiteracy and he was transferred to another facility there after where he was where those rights where reinstated again and then we had a situation where miss hubbard who was transferred to the facility that mr owens is in right now that being current ninth circuit case on this but there is a case in the pipeline and you have no way of knowing about this i only know about it because i was on the panel the case was ramirez vs galaga which numbers zero zero dance one five nine nine four and i believe in opinion it was for coming in it deals with the question of whether a b s or nine hundred eighty three is the appropriate vehicle in a challenge to a condition of confinement that has little or trouble here and i'd like to have my visiting privileges restored if he goes through to court on a nine hundred eighty three he's got to get into court he's got to get everybody's attention then we need some kind of a restraining order all of that takes a little more properly summarily died as a conditions of confinement rather than a challenge to the fact or duration of the individual's confinement regardless of how a will judge look one because of the procedural differences now to argue against him the requirement that he pay the filing fee when he brings the civil rights action even if he has to pay partially and increment and second of all when you look at the allegations of a complaint there is neither a he b s action here or a civil rights action there's simply no liberty interest physical contact between visitors in the visiting room his punishment in the disciplinary was the ninety day non contact so every visit he had was behind a screen over a telephone or in a boo family visiting and indeed contact visiting doesn't implicate a federal right he has no right to this kind of the situation at all he has no constitutional right to contest and you federal liberty interest he may not bring in one thousand nine hundred three action and we don't have that in either his challenge to the disciplinary or in the deprivation family visiting he simply has no federal right of either  becomes an interesting question if the court were to say he had a he vs a right to bring he is action to contest a first amendment family association right or an eighth amendment medical in the normal day to day course of being incarcerated occurred back earlier in district court when mr owen simply file first filed this petition and then the a g s that's when it could have been invited to reply to his petition and then he could have had a chance to he could have been  had a chance to respond or or amend this petition accordingly and i think what this record sit here was really a waste of judicial resources and a waste of time by forcing mr owens to come to this  brief where he could've and that if that doesn't run into the same standard problem so and he could have argued that that he was deprived of has been taken rights based on his hubbard's personal feelings for him and