first matter that i would note for the court is that the hell eastern there are brief have conceded two very important issues first they concede the issue of the existence of the no parole policy is this a proper concession on their part craft and saying that they made a concession that they haven't made accurately and i understand the right because of the concession of that which you have is you have this case coming in the context of a clear unconstitutional application of the law and and the real issue that then presents itself is what are the proper remedies for people in the plaintiff's position in this courts is really getting nowhere in the process i don't understand why not fact circuit for grants the number of petitions that's correct the ninth circuit is the one that is is forced to take care of business because the california courts aren't doing it you have the big decision issued recently you've got the pool decision issued recently mcwilliam to where you are why why other than your feeling that the state court will grant which sought by the point it's in this case when you really look at the complaint and you boil it down to its essence what it's really saying is the governor's board of prison terms each of the state actors is is failing to properly apply the law they're violating due process and they're violating equal protection by not properly implementing the mandate in penal code thirty forty one parole shall normally be granted because they're not properly implementing the law what we're looking for here is not to invalidate some past parole hearing so a decision in this case i think the way to look at it in terms of the hectare which was the primary issue that the district court decided this case on when you look at in terms of the hack bar under the the decisions of this court it is clear in light of and also in line with the decisions of the united states supreme court it's clear that what you look through does the does the ruling in section thirty one if that relief is given does that necessarily invalidate a particular parole hearing and the answer to that is no it does not it would not result in the release of any of these in inmates if they were to bring an action subsequent to the judgment in this case would not be able to assert this case as collateral stoppel on the issue of whether and whether they're  entitled to immediate release it would not give them that that right because there would not be a determination in this action that there role hearing was invalidated when we talk about using parole hearings in this case what we're talking about is using them as evidence of the existence of the no parole policy not something that we're seeking to challenge to overturn we're not seeking to say that you know mr mcwilliams for the subsequent parole hearing was invalid it didn't bar them from proceeding but then went down into a specific discussion of the types of relief that that were given and that what those those types of relief or bar in any of that now they also did go into the exhaustion par n me i didn't think that the other twenty minutes were heck he actually said the other point is are not hack barred but then went into a discussion of the specific types of relief and in essence made the determination that those were not proper matters to be brought and should essentially be brought by by hey b s so the net result is really the same but you're right there is also a a follow up determination that the that the district court it said that there was an exhaustion requirement on the exhaustion requirement the the issue was what what is the administrative remedy that these inmates could see to obtain an order forward looking in nature that gets the governor and the and the acting members of the board of prison terms of all the law there is no such remedy and nowhere has the attorney general's office pointed to one there's there ten forty appeals the b p t ten forty appeals that under twenty fifty of the title fifteen of the code of regulations those appeals are specific to past hearings so if an inmate has a past hearing and wants to challenge the the result policy that will cause them to lose and no parole policy and then at file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that parole was denied unconstitutional because he had a constitutional right based on his liberty interest in individual eyes consideration and was denied an individualized consideration was merely denied parole because of non individualized policy it seems like that would avoid all of the procedural obstacles here and with squarely put the constitutionality of the policy before the in december of two thousand and one that's that's my case and i'm still representing edward remembers because he didn't got a parole date after that this is from his one nine hundred ninety nine hearing he got a parole date after that the governor then took it away i then filed again challenging all those same things and challenging the the application of the of the parole system to him and the no parole policy california supreme court refused to even consider the behavior on the merits and now i'm coming into  the northern district of california to work to bring a read on that so as a practical matter what happens if this doesn't get resolved and the difficulty has been that the california supreme court is looking at this no parole policy in in  lot of difficulty in framing the issues and i think it's properly framed here and it's presented in a way that i think that the federal courts can look at this and make a determination as to whether the state actors are violating the federal constitution or not this is going to give a broad based type of protection to inmates of this nature and that's what the importance of this talk a little gratian is the broad nature of the protection whereas instead of doing individual havey just writs as to this inmate and that inma which you can do here is you can obtain a determination that is that is broad based and applies to the board to the governor and in their actions as to all inma challengeable through those processes and the governor's direct representatives review those at the highest level of review so there is a review for the agency actions that will reach the governor's direct appointees and have a policy subject of the litigation is not the individual world decisions that have been made in these cases it's a policy that not getting parole release dates are in accord with the california statute that says that the board shall normally set a parole release date and it's entirely possible that the girl boards comply fully with the statute and every single point that would get nothing out of it it doesn't seem like they're seeking released they're seeking observance of the statute so there and the agencies will abide by it but once again they made the claims personal circumstances a fine example this court's sort of rule of law that the state of california is process triggers due process protection that's now the rule of law the agencies must abide by the system works exactly as it should in that he has contacts for the case was properly br no longer a viable point of view he's no longer a viable plaintiff insofar as prospective relief is concerned insofar as damages part concerned he might bring a future civil action that would now be outside of the heavy humphrey bar and let's state california law requires that a release date normally be set which amounts to grant parole unless there's a reason not to in the individual cases policy dissatisfied with the parole board members following along here and use whatever ability has to replace him i guess there's a couple of answers to that first the answer is that every time we submit a ten forty appeal to the to the board as a practical matter and read the board response that they do not have no parole policy so they just state we don't have such a policy therefore they don't make a determination on the issue secondly again it's this forward looking nature of that the ten forty feel process is not designed to do anything other than review a prior parole decision that has already been rendered and so they don't really have the power under mcwilliams has not received the benefit of good properly acting now state procedures and i can also tell you that when the governor took away the date of edward ramirez one of the things that he said in