found that ms barr was not deprived of a procedural due process rights because she failed to argue that her pose deprivations state court remedies were inadequate and doing so the court applied the mckinney para doctrine stands for the promise that pretty depravation to process is not required when there is a need for quick state action or that the seizure was the result of  she had to appear before the city council to discuss her operational business was on october ninth notably this is after the august twenty sixth seizure but even but let me ask you something he didn't even if there had been if we thought there were an error with respect to that would it be appropriate for us to send it back to the district court to determine whether pray get probation process was provided and whether those  first time makes the argument on behalf of the defendants saying that well mckinney what applied anyway and so therefore you have failed to state a claim in their forward dismissing her account  struck the difference between parent and hudson and it says that those that rule the the adequacy of the post deprivation state court remedies is deprivation was pursuant to an established state procedure and that's what we have here you have the property being seized pursuant to the established practice of the city as agents and officials to put chains and locks on a business who they think is operating without a business license the this was not a random and an authorized act where the state was not in a position where the city was not positioned to predict whe seizure would occur and the city was in a position to control the acts of its agents and officials and they could have provided her with pretty depredation process and it could have prevented the seizure from occurring so they aren't position to pr process but they did not and that's why there is the violation provided a little bit more factual background that i think the mr diamond we don't dispute that her businesses were locked on august the twenty sixth of two thousand and fourteen the city was contacted by the jefferson county commission it was also a name defendant and they informed the city that she had had her on the twenty sixth that morning she requested to have counsel on how to postpone and when she was walking out that someone from the bar commission told her ok but we're going to send the sheriff to shut down but how much how much under the alabama code section forty five thirty seven forty point zero four days that statute program written notice must be given it released twenty days prior to he decide not to comply with constitutional rights and notice under state law does that i don't believe sir no your honor so why isn't that a problem man it is potentially a problem but of course mckinney practical to give prior notice then we're willing to dispense with a notice and promptly deprivation procedures in those kinds of circumstances why would we not just send this back to the district court to determine whether the whether the defendants put on any evidence that suggests that either there was an emergency or wasn't practical to comply i mean why would we not it's certainly a possibility and it's something that of comprehended i don't think that it's necessary in this instance upholding a representative barbour commission she testified that having these people who were unlicensed coming here is a health hazard that you can a farm district court judgment for any reason that's in the record and i don't know it but in order to do that would we not have to have valuate the credibility of the witness i mean when we have to essentially make a factual far as i know that's not as not been disputed i also to the degree but just to be clear the court did not make such a factual finding that it would be and that there were emergency requirement  because there would be a health hazard if if the place were not shut down without great courage she did not specifically find that there was an emergency situation occurring at this particular time  g and so we didn't think it appropriate for her to continue to do so within the city's limits after they had provoked her licenses to operate that way however i me ask you something if she had continued to do so after having her license revoked are there other options that the state had been pursuing against her for example where there administrator sanctions around possibly criminal  violations those very well may be possibilities i haven't explored all the other options that they could have used but i also would not think it would be appropriate for them to continue to allow someone to  practice something that they weren't licensed to do so and so they were trying to fix that of course it wasn't but maybe ten days later that she got things straightened out with the barber commission and chipping back up right  profession i think is problematic to a lot continue to do so within sometimes a regulatory agency can make a mistake which is why we have three deprivation process so certainly they can  and she met with them and they did what they did but there's also that's also the reason what we have post deprivation remedies are ten days later they open back up she got it's right before they ever revoked her business license based on on the city the city's procedures city reasons but dad is that that doesn't make up for if there was a pretty deprivation violation in the first two times or the first time event that shops were chained shut you would agree that the fact that later time they might have done it right doesn't make up for the prey deprivation the first behest of the city where she had more than ample notice and more than ample opportunity to respond in fact her attorney was present with her but if we're just isolating with the questions being asked of me right now today about the twenty six that that was on the border commission but she didn't meet with them she had an opportunity to to work things out and she asked for more time says you could bring her attorney  had mechanisms whereby she could seek a post deprivation remedy through state chords a number of different ways but she didn't do that instead she filed a lawsuit two years later  and so now we're trying to go piece things back together from that point and see what happened so i think that the district court got it right when it applied mckinney first of all  when property is f individual in this instance it was never finally deprived before she was she opened back up about a week later when the city came in had a hearing by pick surely you're not arguing that it would be ok for the same you just come and property that's not your argument i said that's not our you mean your honor they did it here because the jefferson county commission revoked her license to practice in the profession in which she was at the locations where she was that's why they that's why they did it don't i can't say otherwise your honor but what i can say is that she hasn't stated a claim for a violation of her due process rights based on mckinney and it because she had posed depravation remedies available to our she didn't elect to pursue those but they were there and in cotton versus jackson the plaintiffs in that case specifically asked for a hearing was told we're not going to give you one but you can seek review from an a from a board an administrative board after the fact and in the petitioner plaintiffs had remedial process available to him to fix any deprivation that may have occurred on the front end of things and that's what we have here  claim pursuant to one thousand nine hundred three for a fourteenth amendment procedural due process violation unless you can demonstrate and articulate that post deprivation due process cannot cure the deficiency in here it could have she could have followed the temporary restraining order and circuit court she could have plotted the request being asked  think she could sue for damages if she could demonstrate that the the deprivation the violation the deprivation of her property interest was wrongful  who observed a student barber who had a work permit that required supervision was in her shop with some friends she's not called before the commission to address this issue by the bar commission until some seven days later  os twenty six of that was really immediate hazard to our public's health and safety they could have taken action much quicker let me ask you a question if you don't mind i am understanding mr kenny to be saying that the first shutdown is not a they didn't lock out their doors on the twenty six they clearly they did and that's in the testimony throughout the record and it's clearly stated by one of the inspectors john watkins and his deposition which is tab sixty three five he says the city placed chains unlock some bars business doors on august twenty sixth because she was operating without a business license and they're sick and their department head their supervisor wayne plunkett put the change the locks on our doors to address your question earlier your honor he said does the barber commission have the authority to see someone's property clearly they don't and the authority that they have is these inspectors from a bar or commission they are deputized they get they have a rest powers and if they saw somebody who was violating the rules and regulations the barber commission they are authorized by the law to arrest that person and bring them into custody it to say that the barber commission shut them down on the twenty six just a fa inaccurate statement and potentially it could be one for the courtroom sol because obviously there are facts that weigh in the plays favor on that issue so it so she could have when when the businesses were owner firstly if that is the state's procedure they have an obligation to tell her that's the procedure which they didn't and secondly it's an affair to put the onus on the business owner who had their property seized by the state without having been given an opportunity to address the propriety of their conduct to prevent the wrongful taking in the first instance and the court even addressed this and i wish we could have put in our brief but it was a month after our resource minute to