talking about yes running from the ninth circuit indicating that we should we should file that i think eliminating sanction and then later on we received indications from the ninth circuit that it should be considered an injunction and so the only that you were not a party or at least the department was not a party to the original cd there's no doubt that we were we were never a party oh i didn't do this isn't if you're not applauding and you think you're going to be adversely affected if they refuse to allow him access to his typewriter we thought that was the case and later on in this not before the court plaintiffs in that case brought a motion to compel brought contempt proceedings of corrections and rehabilitation it was an order by the lower court directing this particular well as a court no that doesn't correct it doesn't say it's directing anyone but the effect was it was served on my clients so that they would comply that is provide him with the typewriter and ministry of segregation and that would be an injunction and we believe that to be a permanent junction and i do believe this court would have jurisdiction over a permanent injunction as well john there's no doubt with that the state was not a party in any sense to this order and there is nothing to reckon the state to do anything in this order well i was present when this order even though we were not given notice i was california department of corrections when this case that this particular case on a person that we can don he will be once again in our custody and it's quite possible that he will continue to use this open ended order  they want to allow access to strike right yes you are that would be correct and the only reason he didn't have access to his typewriter at that particular time is because he was an administrative segregation and once he is once this myself know whether it does does it a preliminary injunction my understanding would expire in ninety days but again i was i was directed whether it was a staff member not from the ninth circuit to label it as such and then subsequent to that and before oral argument was granted the court again gave notice and i don't know well it wouldn't be part of the record that i that i put together but we were told this is not a plan there injunction it should be considered a to ignore it you don't want to do that no your honor i would not ever want to have a lower court out there with an order that i have ignored i would always go it doesn't have the name of the state on it your honor of argument that this is an order directed against the custodian of this prisoner no matter who it is is that's is it still a live issue with you is there a problem here today you know we believe  when he comes back to our custody he is going back mr garner is going back to the shoe where he will not be able to get a typewriter where he will not have face to face  this one young doesn't seem to be worried about that he has no intention of reusing this order in any way against you going to what he feels as i understand your honor i'm skeptical for a number of reasons mainly his not being affected by access to the courts and that manner he knew most of the things that he asked for he did in fact have and those things that he didn't have there were security reasons for the the request now why he couldn't have them so there was no irreparable harm there was no lack of access to the courts this was the deadly case if you look at it it's not the type of case where the united states supreme court has indicated we need to give them access to the courts this is not having anything to do with his conditions