detainee and he was nevertheless subjected to eight years in l a county jail in jail conditions in six years in the harsh isolated restrictive add said unit of l a county jail and i didn't pick this up from the stuff i presumptively unconstitutional or this court's decision in jones against blackness and so the posture here is review a grant of summary judgment against mr kim now in order to obtain summary judgment the defendants need to show that no rational trier of fact could conclude at the last stage of the jones analysis that six years in at and eight years in jail conditions were excessive in relation to legitimate reasons that the defendants could proffer defendants didn't could conclude that history was excessive that six years an additive was excessive that eight years in jail conditions were excessive and that was all he needed to do to survive summary judgment you're focusing on the six years which is of course an important way of looking at this case but if we're talking about adverse conditions i should think if the conditions are materially worse within the meaning of jones i think it's sufficient for it to be a month so yes that's i  excessive in relation to a legitimate purpose for example being close to the site of the trial and so we're not arguing that you know a couple weeks maybe even a month you know in a unit in a county jail particular unit that is that is genuinely separate from from jail conditions and different you know would be excessive the problem is this many years of confinement in conditions that are basically indistinguishable from jail conditions what are we supposed to do the following we've got conflict in the dispute well i certainly think that you can look behind the order particularly in light of the fact that we're not talking about you know mr king being held for a couple weeks in response to the order and then you know the county sort of you know sorted out looked at the it looked at the circumstances he ordered realize that multiple statements in the irvin declaration that supported this ex parte order were directly contradicted by t p c its own disciplinary records so the problem is that mr  would then spent five years in ad sag and no one no one looked behind order no one considered whether whether you know the order had any durational you know limit to it i mean there was there was no consideration in fact there's evidence in the record that whether the official knew or should have known of the circumstances and acquiesced but the only piece of evidence you flagged is that the irwin order was directed to sheriff is there to say at declaration that mr cain put in describing his attempt to offer a formal complaint about being held in ad said being told that high level officials had determined he was not going to get out again that's corroborates the idea that a high level official share the sheriff himself that this court held in two thousand and four unconstitutional their evidence on the record as extraordinary it was their usual practice so i think that there isn't conclusive evidence either way i mean i think that there's certainly evidence that adds that was used under the under teaches us normal process see is you know to deal with character issues and to do and sort of it was used very regularly and sort of part of the problem is that county policy allowed you trial yes ok so it seems to me that the the better way to have tried this case and actually i'm not saying this just to fall in retrospect but to suggest going forward what happen was to stipulate to the facts because the facts are pretty egregious on an objective standard and not leave to a jury the decision about an excessive incarceration when a jury might not have the same perspective or frame of reference of the trial court so if the facts were stipulated to which frankly i mean if you wondering what's the difference between the treatment of a criminal detainee and a civil the teenie is because they look awfully similar to to my assessment it would be better to get these positions advanced before the court as matters of law rather than fact what do you think think the case could proceed to trial and that's precisely the type of you know complex litigation back and forth that counsel be well positioned to take care of but that mr kane is a pro se litigant will be much less able to to handle and so you know coun  what are we supposed to do with the comparison between his conditions of confinement and the conditions of coalinga because that's one of the comparisons that jones says there's a relevant comparison and we don't have much at this stage all we have this sort of a website that describes what happens there is that enough to produce a disputed material fact as to what i mean this is an official government website it is judicially knows what we put in we cited cases in in our opening brief i'm supporting that point there's not only the website but there's also numerous decisions lower court decision described in coalinga and extensive detail including one special masters report that goes on for pages and pages so and again that is something that a court can look to and i think the final point i note is that mr cain you know offered a description of polling that it's corroborated by all of these oh there's nothing in the record ok let's see we've taken you over time let's hear from the state but we'll give you a chance to respond thank you what's the what's the state process that's being interfered with you are a mystery king was a sexually violent he wasn't being charged with being a sexually violent predator and there was a state court proceedings ongoing regarding that and in what way is the relief that he seeks going to interfere with there he wanted to be removed from county jail he wanted to be removed from outside he made numerous motions with the state court to be removed from outside to be removed from county jail yes but that in no way would interfere with the proceeding to determine whether he was a sexually violent predator that would only deal with the conditions of his confinement as that proceeding was going forward you know actually in his complaint he actually asked for the sexually violent predator statute to be overturned and i don't think that he can be separated from the relief he was seeking to be removed from the county jail and why not why  separated because it was part of his complaint it was part of his complaint that he be removed from county jail and this is even a nonprofit say cases we knock out parts of complaint all the time leaving the rest of the complaint to go forward your analysis and jones people on us i believe the evidence to support that king's housing at say was legitimate and on he was there he was housed there for non punitive purposes the county jail has one housing area for sexually violent predators there was a court order saying that mr king cannot be housed with other sexually violent predators there would be no other place in the county jail to house him other than that i thank you that well he was in the ad s unit for an extended period of time because there were intermittent discipline infractions right that he would beat up somebody or he get into a fight or threaten some yesterday but since the period of time that he was incarcerated there was so long when you view the number that the kind of infractions that occurred that were used to keep him in the very harsh circumstances of bad sag it seems it was almost  cruel and unusual because they don't warrant that sort intensive punitive incarceration for that period of time so the reasons that were being used to keep him there i don't represent substantial reasons to view him on an ongoing basis for six years and as a threat to other inmates so it seems as if that turns out to be sort of your cover story for keeping a problematic inmate not necessarily a risk but a problematic one where you want him and that is and these tightly controlled circumstances when you looked at the kinds of events that gave rise to that administrative segregation incarceration did you think they warranted that length of time and that level of punitive consideration i say  your policymakers you know i believe that the prison officials that had a difficult situation there was mr king who had a least six inmate discipline reports against him for him starting fights with other civil detainees and was court orders that ordered the sheriff's department to segregate mr king from the civil detainee but forever and there was regarding the protective order against mr king there was no cut off on the  any opportunity to respond to the charges that was just entered without any timeframe is that something that's typically done by state courts and how does the the policymakers  without a hearing or anything i've never seen one before this is the only time i've seen you are based on mr king's unique circumstance i believe that the prison officials had no other choice than to housing and not saying well you know that no other choice is that's a kind of a tricky question because even assuming that the prison officials were required under the circumstances to take how can the state respond was the only place i have when in fact we know it's unconstitutional for him to be there so i am asking you to assume that it's unconstitutional for him to be there given the conditions and i think he can see that but isn't doesn't the state have some obligation to put him somewhere that is constitutionally permissible instead of just to say what little push we have is this this rat infested dungeon or some unconstitutional place i'm you're in the california penal code  does require that it's actually by violent predator means be segregated from the general population to get them up in a hotel right and your guard i mean he's not convicted of anything he's an innocent person he's just have a  nuanced sort of process that they have many factors that they weigh in the classification process to make sure that somebody is properly how was reflecting risks and health needs and age this man was seventy or so saw in the system that we're looking at in the context of this case there seem to be none of those aspects it's just sort of a blunt force determination that somebody picks fights and is therefore i'm savory reason so i wonder if that had anything to do with it that he was being civilly committed for purposes that are viewed by many as being unsavory so if that's the way he gets treated as a sort of a lesser part of the process and overlooked in that way you know i believe the record supports that he was  teen jail security that would be one factor in a well placed jail classification system not the only one that's the only one i could find for why you kept him and i repeat that it doesn't seem to me that there's much difference between the standards for a civil and a criminal detainee if anything this man got laughs as a civil detainee do you think there's a separate classification system that ought to apply to a civil detainee i mean there was a separate classification systems i did apply to sexually violent predator detainees mr king was not housed with the other sexually violent predator detainees  favors or the plastic chair sort of thing yes or no and they also i mean according to the record and king's own declarations that they got to watch t v all day they celebrate thanksgiving because i was his declaration of the others did he didn't he was locked in a show in cell remember yes your honor but the this was at the twin towers correctional facilities you're talking about he got an extra blanket servings of hot water plastic chair and they had the television set on in the 's given us what the status self tells us are the conditions can't we for purposes of summary judgment are pro se case hold the state what the state puts on its website as to the conditions in coalinga and i don't believe it was advertisement on a on a hospital website aren't these facts not in controversy i mean wouldn't the state be in a position to stipulate to the conditions that existed calling i mean isn't this sort of  could certainly find that this was excessive is part of your case the length of time that he was detained prior to final determination is that also part of the excessive nature of this case absolutely  i think i think both are severe with respect to mr king's time in t c f in county jail in those county jail conditions as gelett conditions and with respect to add second six years eight years i mean those are those go directly to  way indicative as to merit but your firm is doing this pro bono and i always say this when we get pro bono lawyers coming in here it's very helpful to us in our deliberations thank both sides for their arguments  i thank you but you're just doing your job too so i don't think that thank both of you again versus county of los angeles submitted for decision