standing both parties appear to agree and acknowledge that neither the supreme court or this court has addressed whether a collateral consequences injury is redress of will we respectfully request this court squarely address this issue in  decision if we look at your cone versus would case that this court took took on like the appellant and that hey this petition it was filed wall the defendant was serving their sentence but before it was addressed that defendant was released and this court definitively stated that a petition challenging the underlying conviction is never moot simply because subsequent to its filing the petitioner was released from custody that was  the respondent concedes also that there there are consequences in this case specifically to a domestic violence conviction but it seems like the jurisprudence is clear that there are collateral consequences to any given conviction period  we look at the remedy and we talk about the addressability here we look at the remedy in vs would the court remanded back to the district court for consideration on the merits there the court did find standing they didn't outwardly address the r regress ability issue but they did seem to agree that there was redress ability or otherwise they would not have remanded the same goes for caracas vs love all which is another on point analogous case here which has taken the issue and said well technically a federal court can't vacate the conviction that what they're dealing with is the prisoner's incarceration and they're released from custody but it doesn't necessarily equate a conviction being vacated we would disagree and we think that the case law is clear on that we would contend that the case law that has come down from this court and the u s supreme court has shown that certainly the circuit or the district court camera man back to the state court in the state court can vacate the conviction so if the court is going to address squarely the redress ability issue we would ask that it rule  favor of defendants who have filed and that was considered while they were in custody and subsequently were out of custody that the redress ability is met because clearly there are collateral consequences the kid the state cited a number of cases wilkinson skinner nettles bailey in the response brief which we contend is not are not analogous one involved d n a evidence discipline violations challenging parole procedures and domingo as defendant had are actually already had their conviction vacated and they were back in pretrial posture so those cases we would argue are not analogous to the case at hand and do not show that redress  ability is not available just because somebody is out of custody at the time clearly there should be a remedy for people especially if they have a domestic violence fiction felony conviction the court's been very clear that there are collateral consequences involved in court specifically noted that your client hadn't identified any specific dates or time frames were he experienced the circumstance he claimed warranted tolling then the proof  time he claimed this disability he was able to reinstate his health care reinstate his driver's license get a car an insurance finalizes divorce get documentation regarding his dad's estate i mean i'm having a hard circumstances where he can be on his feet and take care of matters there's times where he can't in this particular case we have two issues and i would equate it to stillman versus mark in this court where there was equitable tolling found as a result of the prison this conduct by a prison official and by the attorneys negligence and in this case we we have my clients contention about a prison raid which seems like the magistrate judge and the district court judge did not conten deadline is december th no then his attorney has a series of unfortunate events flooding illness etc but why wasn't he able to at that point if his attorneys having problems get another counsel do something about it that is that area between july and december th and what happened there and what did you do and your i think the argument here is that it was not only the attorney's negligence which we recognize is not all that does not necessarily in that case in the state equitable tolling it was also the other factors that work together that because this is a factor of an analysis and that the totality of the circumstances that my client was disabled so maybe it wasn't as easy for him as the average person to find another attorney the fact that he you know he has diabetes he has file as we have from an official document sacramento superior court so that they lost his file completely that is not something that happens often we w contend that that is a agree just circumstance of a court actually losing you know with regard to the prisoner and the magistrate judge he didn't explain when it occurred what specific documents were lost how long he was without his documents what steps he took to obtain new documents i mean equitable tolling has to be based on an extraordinary circumstance and the seems to me th magistrate judge reasonably found that the proof just wasn't anywhere near there and your honor we would simply say that i believe that the court would be holding my client to too high of a standard he was a prisoner he was in prison he's going through a very dark time case not only because we think it could be dispositive but because quite candidly we think it presents some really difficult issues that we want to encourage this court to take an opportunity to consider and with that said i want to go straight caracas versus the valley case that my colleague that my colleague brought up because at st blush i agree i think caracas is a difficult case for the argument that we now po a federal habeas court doesn't lose jurisdiction when during the pendency of proceedings the petitioner is released from custody and it did so by noting a number of adverse collateral consequences that stem from a criminal conviction and in doing so the court specifically focused in on the remedial powers of the federal court and it particularly highlighted section then section two thousand two hundred and forty four dollars which spoke not only to release from custody but other remedy so i read the case like leigh differently than you do i mean it seems to me the court is also focusing on the twenty to forty three language the courts will dispose of the matter as law and justice require that's why why doesn't that sort of require us to find jurisdiction here well that's correct and i think it's a good point that the twenty to forty three language maintains in the current federal statute but i think what's important to know about the long justice language is that by its very wording the justice the discretion that is afforded federal courts to fashion a remedy that is consistent with justice with the passage of ed and of course this court is well aware of the various constraint that were added in a statute of limitations the deference but specifically the section that the caracas court cited the other remedy language that the crofts court cited and said behaviors court the statute appears to show a congressional intent to allow for other remedies to conviction related remedies in the absence of custody to the extent it implied that that language no longer exists in the current federal habeas statute it doesn't exist in twenty to forty four it doesn't exist in any of the in the entire broader statutory scheme congress is a limb a nation of the specific premise for the caracas holding the implied holding of the ability to effectuate a remedy against conviction related injuries is no longer in the statute i mean i understand your argument counsel i think it's tough for a court of appeals of course to parse the language of the supreme court in that way of course and we recognize you know the this is this is a lower court and we're asking for an interpretation of the supreme court opinion we do think that we are not asking for this court to purport to overrule or to to rule in consider that wouldn't work yeah of course of course what we do thing is that courts of appeal all the time for its implied holding about conviction related remedies the fact that that's no longer here we think is a principal basis for distinction and for this court to find that caracas is not controlling on the hague analysis the jurisdiction see in our opinion indeed a majority of the supreme court has recognized that there is no remedy in federal havey this in cases where the claim does not have custody does not go to the duration of confinement and this court in on bond setting said a few years ago in grounds versus nettles where the court specifically found two thousand two hundred and fifty four jurisdiction did not exist for claims that do not go to the core of duration of confinement and the release of mr rezaei in this case from all custody necessarily puts his case in equal footing because there is not a custody based remedy that this court can afford or th that allow under the statute that you're talking about expungement even in the even in the absence of any custody any remaining custody all sounds well we don't we think in large sense whether it's reversal year that federal hevia this goes to custody to the extent there is any review of the underlying state judgment it comes in the context of a review of underlying custody it does not exist for plenary was not substantially shown but apart from extraordinary circumstances we think that this court can simply reject the claim of equitable tolling as a matter of diligence we think for every discrete period of time for which tolling is requested to resolve is simply did not act with the diligence necessary under the supreme court's case law to justify a grant to backward tolling we know that after he was released from prison and purports to have missing documents that were claimed essential to his filing he waited months and indeed as judge bennett noted did a number of other activities rather than focusing on collecting his documents by the same token when he did collect documents and hired state hippias counsel by their very agreement in exhaustion petition in state court was supposed to be filed by september and yet there is no  communication with the attorney and importantly their specific representation agreement expires contemplated that mr resolve it was still responsible for the filing of a federal petition and as judge clare stated he could have and should have filed a protective position petition to protect his rights under paste and then he could have sought citing the very circumstances that he now claims of when things happen especially when someone's in prison the magistrate judge in this case didn't necessarily dispute or did not dispute my client's credibility as to what happened or the state attorney's credibility as to what happened that the judge seemed to accept those findings at face value and i think the issue here is were these extraordinary circumstances based on the circumstances not based on when they happened the exact dates you know we the client gave the best timeframes that he could  the condition he was in but requiring him to give the exact dates and to recall those things while he was a prisoner and dealing with everything a prisoner has to deal with we believe is too high a burden and  battle for him we would contend that if we were to look at the other cases that are cited in the brief we arguably have more extraordinary circumstances here at least in volume or number than we do in the other cases and that we asked this court to please exercise their discretion and allow my client to have the opportunity to have his his petition heard on the merits  district court to have the opportunity to present those for because he did act as diligently as he can as he could have he did hire an attorney hired a federal habeas attorney regarding the crawfords case we would just again go to the law has not changed on that it's still good law