think it's a good thing because i'm my practice is supporting law enforcement this is a very important case for law enforcement and state of california  the person that wrote this brief for me partner you know really believe in a police officer bill of rights and the right of officers like toronto i want to tell you that i've had these issues before where the l a county civil service commission will not handle rule nine hearings and give them an administrative appeal as they're entitled to but accountable as i understand it the real issue here is whether medically based personnel decisions are properly before that commission is not right that that's what that's what the commission believes and that's also what the superior court decided as well the writ of mandate right right but dead but what they decided was is that the civil service commission didn't have jurisdiction right well they do the hearing that was required right but that's that's another way of saying that the rule nine that you're looking for apply in a situation like this where your client was determined to medically be ineligible to continue his employment is never right well medically is here's the problem with that you rate the reason i brought this case to the district court and not the other ones where this happened is this was a single offense by a tenured officer that had disputed facts  as to whether or not he pushed the end maid who came up from behind and startled him because inmates are not supposed to do that and the reason i brought that is because good facts make good law i've had other cases where there have been a number of incidences that they lumped together as psychological unfitness those cases aren't good cases because they don't have good facts the last should be the same because that's what the police officer to make the law then no no no there is no new law i but what i'm what i'm struggling with is is this the if your client had not yet been hired and the same medical evaluation had been done he would not have been hired in the first place is that a fair statement well i assume so although it is that he was not fit for duty although we do have police officers that escaped that kind of scrutiny perhaps but but the question here is he was he was in the past the probationary period this was a predicate act that he took in connection with the prisoner it is set in motion and evaluation  up by regulation they first evaluated him the medical officer said this gentleman is not fit for duty he then had an opportunity to bring two people of his own choosing to say he was and then someone decided the issue and concluded that he was unfit for duty he was not fired he just was changed in his assignment because they felt he could not be a law enforcement officer anymore because of his temperament his mental mental condition  in ministry to rid of mandate and the only issue only issued before the supreme court was whether or not the civil service commission hearing officer should give him a hearing that's required under state law and federal law under due process standards and that's is what is and the decision was the decision was that the civil service commission lacked jurisdiction to hold that hearing entitle to the hearing that he sought there not not before the civil service commission which is what's wrong with rule nine it's a it's unconstitutional as in so far as due process for for cause removed i believe so it never got there got to judge kronstadt i was there when judge kronstadt entertained the initial motion to dismiss and came up with the idea of severing the civil service commission cow it's that's what i understand the case to be and and as my colleague suggested you certainly have the opportunity to present to the supreme court the very issues that you are appealing at this point and by failing to do that are you not  was that let's see if we can get this taken down taken care of down the spirit court level get them a hearing he wasn't saying that they weren't entitled to a hearing all right in the country he said but that's the forum where the hearing should take place or we do know there will be consequences as a result hearing but we didn't get the hearing it we didn't get the hearing you because you got a determination that you weren't entitled could he oh exactly so where's is so so we did we got we got the determination that the civil service commission lacked jurisdiction so there was never an opportunity for an administrative appeal under rule nine if if if had been a civil warehouse worker and not a police officer and he had been a tenured employ he would have got a hearing under rule for of civil service commission the medical issue was involved and that's a whole different matter is it not avoid having a very disputed fact situation overturned he wanted to get rid of this employ all that he has to do is say well you're psychologically unfit we're going to refer you to the the county psychological services the and that's all that they would have to do that's unfair that is an end run around the police officer bill right statute is that is the problem with the determination that there's a distinction between medical and disciplinary actions were judged const ed found it was disciplinary all right he did find that he said it was a punitive action  under government code section thirty three all for be any dismissal demotion suspension transfer purposes the punishment is a person a punitive action regardless of the motivator you're disagreeing with how how do you convince that without evidence that's what we were trying to prove that's why we brought the lawsuit all right but judge joe i i know the judge kronstadt said it was a punitive action and that's and that's what he said in the record and i could if i had a minute whether he did or didn't doesn't change the fact that as my colleague read the superior court term and that this was a medically based change sent back judge  all that was not the intent for going back and the attempt judge kronstadt i believe that is intent was get your hearing down there all right get your administrative appeal down there he wasn't saying you don't have a right to an administrative appeal there is a case i would like to cite the news as you know over time we've been gauged you quite a bit we're going to give you a minute after the county i knocked and you responded you're going to give us the rest of your argument at that point ok i just i your honour's with noting what the complaint was in this case there was a due process claim in federal court there was a claim for a violation peace officers bill of rights and there was a cause of action that here's what's going to happen if you're going to go on this writ you can do that but there's consequences and that's in the record and the court's court is aware of that and this whole the court is aware that he could have dismissed it and said no i don't want to go in superior court i'm going to go with my federal claim due process he has that right he didn't do that what he did was have the case stayed good a superior court and the superior court made certain findings which is on the record those findings included the pole bar is not applicable in this case those findings indicated that plaintiff now appellant received a skelly hearing and got sufficient due process that's all in the record in the record also was it wasn't disciplinary it was a medical basis the report ends up concluding the commission didn't abuse is discretion in determining that it like jurisdiction but not just not denied a fair hearing not the due process thing that is the due process claim now what appellant could have done was go to the california appellate court to appeal this decision that would've been on spring street for geographically challenged individuals he didn't do that where he did was he continued back with judge kronstadt in federal court a different form and the judge judge cross and decided to apply the fear and faith full faith and credit clause or the rock or feldman or whatever it's called now but the bottom line was we have a stake claim that is now final on claims including including due process paul bar and the district court is bound yes and on that day he made a conclusion that he would be entitled to a hearing and hear that so i have a response to that first of all what we didn't even talk about yet was that initially there was a hearing before we even got ritz wasn't titled as a cause of action instead of appealing that immediately to the superior court which he could have done also by the way what he did was he brought the whole thing in district court so what judge kronstadt did was say this writ cause of action it's not appropriate in federal court the way to do that is you've got to go to secure court now he had already blown the deadline to go disappear court to challenge because the way it works is you go to civil service then you go to secure court and they want to go go to california public court he didn't do that so what he did was he bypassed that by just filing in superior court and judge cranston said if you want to do that fine we're going to send it over here because the judge judge cranston he can't entertain a writ in the consider that's correct but why isn't that still here because for a couple of reasons one is because the judge cranston had found that once appellant exercised his decision to go in court the district i'm sorry disappear in a court determined that due process had been met so because due process had been met and there was no violation of due process judge kronstadt had felt ok there's already a state court decision therefore there is no federal violation for due process now here's the key thing here one of the arguments that appellant has just made was it's not fair it's not right here's someone who is a police officer who has this due process and you've already have a judicial determination of due process therefore there was nothing for judge constant to do you already have a judicial determination of due process where you address what judge across  somewhere there but what judge crunched had said it said was initially when this case went forward before any motion had been determined judge cranston had said that you've got this cause of action for writ and that's that  to be determined first before i go in determining whether federal due process rights or this separate claim for relief for the whole bar is established if you want to proceed with that claim you need to go to the superior court but it what's go happen is if the superior court makes the termination that is favorable to you that is going to help you if it's not favorable to you it could hurt your case and he proceeded and went on in the superior court i hope i am what i'm not understanding is what choice y over the choice you got going to just dismiss the cause of action for it in other words let's say the court says the district court says you know what you want to proceed with this claim you can go to supreme court appellate could have said you know what i'm going to dismiss this with prejudice without prejudice whatever it is and just proceed with my due process right you could have done that then you would have had no duty to shut digicel determination at that point there's no collateral supple it's been dismissed without prejudice there's no determination but it was the collateral estoppel it was kind of the issue hanging out there because the the the allegations all that with the same set of facts right right is nothing new here and the superior court when it held the hearing on the writ was dealing with those facts and didn't judge to take the position that since he had an opportunity to raise those claims before the superior court did not do so and then did not appeal that those issues were final one no i think what he what he said was well it was only after the superior court made that determination the superior court made the determination it can't the matter was all right but what i'm saying didn't he warn them that maybe i didn't read what he said carefully enough didn't he kind of indicate when you go to the supreme court there will be consequences from that yes yes and that's it and i agree with that but in in the in the typical case where you have collaterals to stop all consequences there's a choice you can either if you can you can go to the state court litigate those claims and if you could have litigated the federal claims there and you don't that's your choice what you're saying judge kronstadt told them was you have to go to two to state cour clear to me and reading it suppose that it didn't if suppose it didn't sit well i would say that i don't know i hear the question so my responses i think two answers to that one is it did because they did say specific things such as due process has been met there was a skelly hearing there was sufficient process that so that would be my first answer one or the second if they did not say that and it was completely silent then i would say by the reading the report you take up that extraneous language i just mentioned i still think there would be die due process met because there still was the process you still had a psychologist look at by the way that psychologist is in a different department not the sheriff's department then there is the second type of appeal process within that particular unit then after that there is a skelly hearing go back to the sheriff's department so there is a due process so i think there's two layers on that ok and talked about who are the individuals who are claimed to have done any wrongdoing before you can get to manila claim the minute claim is there is a pattern and practice that's based on a rule nine mis management who are those people who are doing that sheriff baca captain l a the c e o from the p d there's nobody who is alleged to have done anything that contribute to a pattern and practice things with those people were dismissed in any event right exactly correct or at least there was no opposition to them yes  i just dismayed because what what federal i've been here before not in the ninth circuit but i've been in district court arguing a police officer bill of rights and i'm i've got to tell you they don't get it the same way the california state judges get it this police officer bill writes is is cold for police officers you spend a lot of money on training you spend a lot of money on making them conform their conduct to the way police officer should act and you can't just fire them well let me can't fire them without due process there was no due process councilors yeah i suspect what you're saying and it may very well be that the judges of the supreme court and elsewhere in california are far superior to the federal judge but that's not the issue before us the real issue is you had a supreme court hearing by one of those excellent judges they ruled against you in every respect and the case as far as the judge concert was concerned is over but they denied me a francisco thirteen gallup fifth one at page sixteen it deals with the home rule issue of rule nine not that particular home rule statute but it deals with the  case just argued is submitted