not violate mr damage or its first amendment right when they refused to deliver to subscription magazines once he was transferred to the reception center at the white lascaux prison facility and then the second principle issue is whether the district court  and right that's not really what we're talking about here is that this is a this is a prisoner who was in a transitional center and he didn't know how long he was going to be there probably there are some administrative issues perhaps some cost issues which we talk about later that the president is raising it's not that they're trying to deprive him of his material it's that when people come and go you get a bunch of mail piling up and you have to trace where the prisoners are going they don't feel it's reasonable i think there's just two things i'd like to say in response to that and that's the first is that the undisputed fact is that that prisoners in the transition in the reception center are there for on average sixty to ninety days and we would posit that that is not a short term deprivation of a first amendment right mr danley birkenstocks was actually there for four months and he in his declaration submitted that he policy issue isn't rational because the prisoners were still receiving their regular mail they were still receiving their intitled to subscribe to a single book per month all of these different things that were allowed to be processed into let's work backward what about the prison news case that says that the prisoners just generally whether they're in the transitional area or not do not have a right to bulk mail you agree with that i think here as there counselor if you're if your client were in a specific long term holding cell nobody's saying that he couldn't get time or newsweek or sports illustrated or like playboy and buy girl or whatever he wants  maybe the latter maybe there's a problem i don't know but in any event there's a problem about that is there does it that's not the issue before the issue really is really the issue really is here's somebody a transitional center nobody really knows how long he's going to be there once he gets to a specific place are going to be for a longer time there's no problem with the male this is a sin administrative problem and i'm trying to deprive him of his first amendment rights that it's an they tried to put forward that cost alone entitles the depravation and the other important factor here is that the second prong that shouldn't be overlooked in the turner test which is that whether the prisoner had alternatives available to exercising his first amendment right and here the district court found that there was a material dispute a fact on that point and did not then take the next step which is required on summary judgment which is to find that that that this is a blanket deprivation which the ninth circuit just favors generally of such a right and the idea that you can define a category of first amendment material and just based on that we have a clearly established right for when is it through a qualified immunity i think there's a difference between the two but how do you know when you tell somebody look you've got a right to get both where is the idea that there have been other instances where the deprivation has been of comparable length and and the length of that deprivation was not it wasn't necessarily involving a reception center facility or  days for convicted felons and on those facts that that's how long the inmates were deprived or incarcerated at the institution they were still there was still found to be a first amendment violation by denying those prisoners their magazines and newspapers what your position the house versus bottom of the fourth circuit case where you had a transitional senator almost all forced with this was there he would receive his his magazines because in fact he did receive his magazines he received his first magazine within the first week of having transferred there and that was actually delivered to him because he wasn't at that point in the reception center but after he moved to the reception center he continued to receive magazines during the length of time that he was there in housing the plaintiffs did not submit any evidence to suggest that they think it would have been feasible to receive any magazines during the length of time of the incarceration so i length of time he would have received any magazines had they been allowed and here in vandenberg scase we know that the magazines made it to the prison in time that he could have received it while he was there but the  a month and seventy six inmates a day that are transferred out of you have any i don't know this is on the record so it may be an improper question that's the case is there any evidence in the record that suggests how long it takes to get a subscription change like for example time magazine my own personal experience is that if you move in you you you send in a request to change your travel subscription it takes about six weeks ok to  change i don't know whether there's anything in the record on this but if you postulate that that's the case would it not be rather impractical for those kinds of magazines to be switched around in a trance that transitional center absolutely and it know their new location until they're actually transferred out of the transition center and like i said sometimes it can take up to six weeks so now you things must be forward for that period of time it's very impractical and i think through questions whether i have to l but you know what's wrong with the policy if it takes a long time together what's wrong with the policy of letting people who are subscribers receive what they've already subscribed so that you don't have new subscribers well  reality is if you took mr danvers proposal you're talking about if it were two hundred thousand dollar cost and if every inmate based upon the figures that we have where there would be point two three percent  hite to three percent of one percent of the total prison budget just take all of the scriptures and forward all of them that is not a reasonable burden for the prison to bear yes when you consider that there are one hundred in our approximately  time this occurred that he would have known that he was violating this prisoner's constitutional right the opposing counsel has suggested least implied that he certainly showed up because taylor another test where there what's your response to that i do not believe that the law was clearly established in this area for transitory inmates reception center is the non content based policy it's a temporary interruption in magazine subscriptions and as you mentioned the house versions vote case the fourth circuit case that the district court relied on heavily to be on all fours with this case would be to present a reasonable person official to believe that their actions were reasonable in the house i'm not sure your honor our newspapers available i believe i actually and i'm sure it's newspapers i believe in the prison law library there are newspapers available but i don't believe it's actually in the record and as such up as i said this is a temporary not content based policy and it's a temporary interruption in magazine subscriptions it was recently reasonably related to a legitimate government interest in the administrative burden would be on the system and the law was not newspapers and i just wanted to address that but let me just ask you this maybe you know what you did not know i wanted another they talked about a cart going through a library card our newspapers available on that he it certainly is not in the fact record if they are in fact mr gannon broke indicated that the cart contained only books and he was only able to check out in fact the card was only made available twice to him during his stay at the reception center so  same would be books are also not adequate substitute and i think it's also to the defendants have raised the issue of this administrative burden and is only requesting is that they do an incremental more amount of what they already do he's not asking for a complete people and how they administer the mail services they already process magazines for the mainline prisoners who are there who are one final point is that i'm qualified immunity you only get to the second third two prongs on the first is to determine whether there was a violation of the first amendment rights and you only get to the second  i was wondering was if you were whether you were in the attorney general's office might not settle this case we have a mediation service and i wondered whether you were both interested in going there and seeing if you could agree on a solution that would make you both happy i assume the