[00:00:03] Speaker 01:
I was just thinking about the Thanksgiving holiday coming up.

[00:00:07] Speaker 01:
You know, I looked at it and I saw that, you know, you guys don't get Friday off, which I think is unfair.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Maybe you guys ought to make a push to have that called Abraham Lincoln Day, because he's the one that instituted it.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
So, you know, and we don't have a separate holiday for Abraham Lincoln.

[00:00:23] Speaker 01:
We do have for George Washington, because it's really not President's Day.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
If you look at the federal statute, it's George Washington's Day.

[00:00:27] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
Well, this motion is granted, so.

[00:00:32] Speaker 01:
So I'm making a push for that.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
We'll see you later.

[00:00:35] Speaker 01:
Anyway, OK.

[00:00:37] Speaker 01:
I'd like to thank the court for allowing me to present my oral arguments.

[00:00:42] Speaker 01:
I represent the defendant's appellants in this matter.

[00:00:46] Speaker 01:
Crawley's due process claim is barred by Heck because Crawley identified the supposedly good time credits as his deprived liberty interest, and Heck bars a claim which would necessarily imply the invalidity of Crawley's sentence, which includes the invalidity of the deprivation of good time credits.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
The first time we're seeing this is in the reply brief.

[00:01:06] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor, that's correct.

[00:01:08] Speaker 04:
Okay, so how is this properly considered at this point?

[00:01:13] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, that case would be the Hebron case.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
That's exactly what happened in Hebron.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
In fact, at least I'm a little bit ahead of the defendants in Hebron because the defendants in Hebron didn't raise it at all.

[00:01:28] Speaker 01:
It was the district court that actually raised the case

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
But the court in Hebron went forward and said, hey, under the PLRA, these things can be raised at any time.

[00:01:39] Speaker 01:
And that the court has a suespante obligation to raise these things when he sees that the case necessarily would be required to be dismissed.

[00:01:49] Speaker 01:
And that's exactly what we have here.

[00:01:52] Speaker 01:
For the first time in their answering brief, they first said that, hey, he is being deprived not just of good time credits, but good time credits

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
that affected the length of his sentence.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
And so heck applies.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
And I don't know how we overcome that, because in Hebron, it talked about this forfeiture issue.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
And it's the Edwards case that's directly on point.

[00:02:15] Speaker 01:
And even though they tried to distinguish it using Judge Ginsburg's concurrence, which is not in the majority opinion, I don't think that you can go and say, OK, well,

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
go back and look forward and say, hey, well, we can change our interpretation now, but you can't, because you have Hebron.

[00:02:33] Speaker 04:
Let me ask you, you know, one thing here that's a little different than Hebron is that your clients went, you had a state court proceeding that was also pending, and seemingly you used this federal case to get that case dismissed.

[00:02:48] Speaker 04:
So under those circumstances, why is that not a waiver of the heck bar?

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
Well, because, Your Honor, because

[00:02:56] Speaker 01:
The thing is is that that case would have been heck barred too.

[00:03:00] Speaker 01:
I mean, if it went forward.

[00:03:01] Speaker 01:
The reason why, what he's doing is he's coming forward and saying, hey, because I filed the claim that I shouldn't have filed because it was already in federal court, then somehow that makes us have a waiver of an issue that was never raised in the state district court.

[00:03:15] Speaker 01:
And I don't know how you get to that point.

[00:03:17] Speaker 02:
But I think the difference here, I mean, in Hemran,

[00:03:23] Speaker 02:
You think the question was it was failure to raise an affirmative defense and the district court raised heck here.

[00:03:31] Speaker 01:
We don't have anything Well, why isn't that different because because the P because the PLR says that can be raised at any time and in the there's a Which is a case?

[00:03:45] Speaker 01:
Sorry, I don't the case name escapes me but this court itself has applied the PL array for the first time in in this court and

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
And therefore, I decided in my briefs.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
And so for the very first time, you have the same obligation the district court has.

[00:04:01] Speaker 01:
There's not a difference of time.

[00:04:03] Speaker 01:
So it says for the first time.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
And here, it's clear that this is on all fours under Hebron.

[00:04:12] Speaker 01:
I want to go on to continue, because this is the thing about this case, with respect to the liberty interests.

[00:04:17] Speaker 01:
Because of course, you have to be deprived of liberty interests.

[00:04:21] Speaker 01:
You can't have a 14th Amendment claim unless you're deprived of life, liberty, or property.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
That's from the very statute of the Amendment, right, Your Honors?

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
And so he's got two things.

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
Either one, it didn't shorten his sentence, right?

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
If it didn't shorten his sentence, I mean, didn't lengthen his sentence, OK?

[00:04:45] Speaker 01:
If it didn't lengthen his sentence, well, then heck doesn't apply, right?

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
Because it wasn't.

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
If it doesn't, he doesn't have a liberty interest in it, because in Nevada law, it is clear that unless it affects the sentence, the length of the sentence, there's no liberty interest in being provided parole early.

[00:05:02] Speaker 01:
And so he's in two slots.

[00:05:05] Speaker 01:
So it's either one or the other, Your Honors.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
Either he doesn't have a liberty interest, and therefore there's no due process violation, or if he does have a liberty interest, it's barred by heck.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
Crawley did not violate the due process rights because he was properly disciplined for smuggling drugs into prison, because they failed to establish that he was deprived of anything.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
That was a good time credits.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
I want to also talk about the officers, because they also, you've got to have personal participation.

[00:05:37] Speaker 01:
Again, the statute says you've got to deprive somebody.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
So if the person they're suing didn't deprive them of anything, but this were part of the process,

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
They did not violate the 14th Amendment.

[00:05:48] Speaker 01:
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that you can't violate the 14th Amendment just by not giving procedures.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
You've got to deprive them of something.

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
And so you have a bunch of defendants.

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
You have Officer Sway, who didn't participate at all in the first disciplinary hearing.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
You have Senior Officer Holloway, Sergeant Robinson, Deputy Director Williams, who all did not appear in either disciplinary hearing.

[00:06:11] Speaker 01:
And so they did not deprive him of anything.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
And so if they did not deprive him of anything, they cannot violate the 14th Amendment.

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
The members of the disciplinary committee provided all the due process required, even though Crawley was not deprived of a liberty interest provided by the 14th Amendment.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
Crawley therefore cannot establish a violation of the 14th Amendment.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
And I want to talk about this thing about the procedures, because there's a few things that are going on here with respect to this, okay?

[00:06:41] Speaker 01:
The main issue here is whether or not he was provided evidence that he requested.

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
But he didn't just request evidence, he wanted the evidence that was going to be used against him, okay?

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
The case they cite for that is the Melnick case.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
But Melnick specifically recognized that he's only entitled to exculpatory evidence.

[00:07:04] Speaker 01:
And so he's not requesting exculpatory evidence.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
He's requesting the evidence that's going to be used to prosecute him.

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
And so therefore, under Melnick, he's not entitled to any of the evidence at all.

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
And also, there was a security concern here.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
The reason why evidence was not provided, which in the disciplinary hearing and in the subsequent grievance appeals, they continually affirmed

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
that this is a security.

[00:07:33] Speaker 01:
The reason why this evidence wasn't provided, and that's again different from Melnick, because in Melnick they said, hey, there was no reason security issue here at all, and therefore it wasn't provided.

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
Just because Crawley was provided all the willful requires also.

[00:07:49] Speaker 01:
He was given everything he was.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
He was provided notice of the hearing.

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
He was provided opportunity to call witnesses.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
Under security concerns that are available.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
And he was given a copy of the decision that was supported by some evidence.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
Which therefore, he was entitled to do.

[00:08:08] Speaker 01:
Therefore, there is no case.

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
that talks about, first of all, there's no case that provides that people who aren't in the disorderly process, grievance responders are not, people who are pre-doing it are not, there's no case that says that these people can deprive somebody of due process.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
The disciplinary hearing members, they didn't deprive them because they provided all that they could within the constraints of the prison industries.

[00:08:30] Speaker 01:
And that has to be done here, Your Honor.

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
You have to look at it from the prison industries.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
And I would like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.

[00:08:36] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:08:37] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Mr. Davis.

[00:08:49] Speaker 00:
Good morning, may it please the court, Zoe Addis representing Appellee Dane Crawley.

[00:08:53] Speaker 00:
Nevada Department of Corrections officials found Mr. Crawley guilty of two disciplinary offenses without ever giving him access to the full evidence they relied on.

[00:09:03] Speaker 00:
As a result, Mr. Crawley did not know the basis for defendant's accusations and could not defend himself against their charges.

[00:09:10] Speaker 00:
When he attempted to do so, he was told repeatedly by defendants that his defenses were irrelevant to the charges against him, something that he had no way of knowing because he didn't know what evidence was being used against him.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
Counsel, can I interrupt you for one second?

[00:09:24] Speaker 03:
Can you explain to me why you think that Williams violated Crawley's due process rights

[00:09:31] Speaker 03:
here because he merely denied the grievance after the hearing itself.

[00:09:38] Speaker 00:
Absolutely your honor because that is because office Deputy Director Williams was able to provide Mr. Crawley with evidence that was used against him and he failed to do so and that goes to the fact that throughout the procedure Mr. Crawley was not able to defend himself against the charges that were levied against him because he didn't know what what those charges were in substance because he didn't have the evidence against him that includes at the grievance process

[00:10:05] Speaker 00:
When he was asked, Deputy Director Williams, for the evidence against him and was not provided with that evidence.

[00:10:12] Speaker 00:
In Melnick, the defendants that were held liable to were asked for the evidence that was used against Melnick in order to find him guilty.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
They failed to provide it and they were held liable for doing so.

[00:10:23] Speaker 04:
So in the first proceeding, what was he not provided with?

[00:10:26] Speaker 00:
He was not provided with what defendants have labeled sensitive evidence.

[00:10:30] Speaker 00:
We know that that includes phone calls that were recorded of Mr. Crawley's.

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
We don't know if there's other evidence in there because we have not been given access to that evidence, but we do know that it includes those phone calls that they believe include Mr. Crawley referring to introducing contraband into the facility.

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
And that is what Williams did not provide.

[00:10:50] Speaker 00:
He did not provide that access to the sensitive evidence and so Mr. Crawley was unable to review that sensitive evidence and potentially there was content in that evidence that he would be able to provide an innocent explanation for if he was able to review it.

[00:11:04] Speaker 00:
Defendants relied on that information but did not give Mr. Crawley an opportunity to evaluate it to determine if there was an innocent explanation that he could provide that would show his own innocence.

[00:11:14] Speaker 04:
And there was not an explanation as to why it couldn't have been provided, like security?

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:11:20] Speaker 00:
Defendants have merely labeled the evidence as confidential, but Melnick is very clear that merely labeling is not sufficient.

[00:11:26] Speaker 00:
A logical foundation must be provided for why evidence needs to be held confidential.

[00:11:32] Speaker 00:
That's what the district court found that defendants had not done here, and that is why they granted summary judgment to my client.

[00:11:38] Speaker 04:
What about the HEC issue?

[00:11:40] Speaker 00:
In terms of the HEC issue, as you noted earlier, Your Honor, that this has been clearly forfeited by defendants.

[00:11:46] Speaker 00:
They did not raise it before my client was granted summary judgment, and they failed to raise it after until their reply brief.

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
This is a classic instance of forfeiture, and defendants have provided no reason for why this court should excuse that forfeiture.

[00:11:58] Speaker 00:
But on the merits, HEC is very clear that there are two different kinds of challenges to the kind of deprivation that occurred here.

[00:12:06] Speaker 00:
One is a challenge to the process.

[00:12:08] Speaker 00:
by which the deprivation occurred.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
And thus, it is not Heckbard, and Hebrard is not on point.

[00:12:27] Speaker 04:
That one seems tougher, just because he seems to be claiming that there was actually maybe insufficient evidence against him on some of this.

[00:12:34] Speaker 04:
So it seems to be maybe more fundamental than just a mere process violation.

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
I think if we compare this case to that of Balasok, we can see why this does not necessarily imply the invalidity of the sanctions.

[00:12:47] Speaker 00:
In Balasock, there were allegations of deceit and bias, and the court found that that could not be cured through another hearing.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
There was no way for defendants to make out their case.

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
Here, we can envision an instance in which the remedy that is afforded to Mr. Crawley is a new hearing, defendants do a rehearing of this process and find Mr. Crawley guilty once again, but give him access to the evidence against him so that he can defend himself, and there is some evidence in the record that supports a finding of guilt

[00:13:16] Speaker 00:
that the district court can evaluate.

[00:13:18] Speaker 00:
Thus, it is not necessarily implying the invalidity of the sanction because there could be a remedy that does not invalidate the sanction.

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
Let me go back to Hebrard.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
I mean, how do you read this case?

[00:13:28] Speaker 04:
Because there was a forfeiture there, too, and there's language in the opinion that talks about a court being permitted.

[00:13:35] Speaker 04:
It also talks about a court being required.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
The first thing I'll note is that at 1006 in Hebrard, the court is very clear that HEC is an affirmative offense that may be waived or forfeited.

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
There, the court determined that they would excuse the forfeiture, but they did so because they believed that Mr. Hebrard's underlying claims were not meritorious, so there would be no prejudice.

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
if they decided to excuse the forfeiture.

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
that the PLRA requires dismissal where on the face of its complaint there is a hack bar.

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
On the face of the complaint here there is not a hack bar because again Mr. Crawley is challenging the process by which he was deprived of his good time credits not the revocation itself and as I've discussed on the merits of hack that shows that there was not a hack bar on the face of the complaint and thus there was not a suespante obligation

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
to sue Assante dismissed this case and we don't believe that the forfeiture should be excused.

[00:14:47] Speaker 00:
And going to the merits of what defendants are arguing, they say that they were only entitled to provide Mr. Crawley, that Mr. Crawley was only entitled to exculpatory evidence.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
But that runs headlong into this court's holding in Melnick, in which the court held that following from Wolf, in which the Supreme Court said that individuals in a prison disciplinary context must be able to present a defense on their own behalf, that individuals must, in order to do so,

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
have access to the evidence against them.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
If it was only exculpatory evidence, that holding wouldn't make sense because you don't need exculpatory evidence in order to present a defense on your own behalf.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
You need to understand what incriminating evidence the defendants in this case would have.

[00:15:27] Speaker 00:
so that you can prepare a defense to those arguments.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
And so it's clearly not true from Melnick that only exculpatory evidence is what Mr. Crawley is entitled to.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
He is entitled to all the evidence that was used against him.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
And if we look at the recording of the second proceeding, this is labeled Exhibit F and these are two exchanges.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
one beginning at 6 minutes and 35 seconds, the other at 8 minutes and 20.

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
Mr. Crawley repeatedly attempts to say, you know, this piece of mail wasn't incriminating, this piece of mail wasn't incriminating, and defendants respond, well, that's irrelevant to the charges.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
You don't know what we're talking about.

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
But he had no way of knowing what they were talking about, so he couldn't bring challenges to those specific pieces of evidence because he didn't know what that evidence was.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
He had no way of presenting a defense on his own behalf.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
This is a classic instance of why Melnick requires

[00:16:14] Speaker 00:
all the evidence to be given to individuals so that they can present a defense on their own.

[00:16:21] Speaker 04:
I know your position is you win on both, but there seems to maybe be a difference between the first and the second one.

[00:16:25] Speaker 04:
I mean, the first one, I think it's fair to say he had a greater idea of what was going on.

[00:16:30] Speaker 04:
He was deprived of some information, he claims, but it seems it's hard to argue in the first one that he didn't have an understanding of what this was about.

[00:16:37] Speaker 00:
I think what we can say, Your Honor, is that he didn't have an understanding of what the sensitive evidence was.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
He didn't know what phone conversations defendants were using to say that he was discussing bringing contraband into the facility.

[00:16:50] Speaker 00:
He wasn't able to provide an innocent explanation for those conversations because he didn't know, in fact, what conversations were being discussed at all.

[00:16:58] Speaker 04:
I see that my... Well, you have two minutes, so... Oh, I have two more minutes.

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
Perfect.

[00:17:02] Speaker 04:
Let me ask you, I wanted to ask you about...

[00:17:06] Speaker 04:
Sue Holloway and Robeson.

[00:17:09] Speaker 04:
And so I think the argument is that they were actually involved in depriving your client of due process.

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
So should they still be in this case?

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
They should, Your Honor.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
And I want to start by saying that there are two defendants that the defendants have not challenged their personal participation as to.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
That's Lieutenant Ashcraft with respect to both hearings.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
And then that's Officer Suey with respect to the second hearing.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
But the other individuals here also participated in the due process violation.

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
because they too failed to provide Mr. Crawley with the evidence that was being used against him in their notice of charges which failed to provide a full understanding to Mr. Crawley of what evidence was being used to find him guilty of these charges or to understand why they believe that these charges were valid.

[00:17:54] Speaker 00:
In addition, Officer Robeson was explicitly asked for the evidence that was being used against Mr. Crawley and he failed to provide it, the same as the officers in Melnick who were held responsible

[00:18:05] Speaker 00:
There did.

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
They refused to provide the evidence when it was asked for.

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
And qualified immunity is also not an argument that defendants can rely on here.

[00:18:15] Speaker 00:
That is because the right to have access to the evidence is clearly established by this court's decision in Melnick, in which the court held that all evidence that is relied upon to find an individual guilty of a disciplinary proceeding must be given to an individual.

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
Not only was that clearly established by Melnick,

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
But in Melnick, they said that there was no qualified immunity that could be granted to defendants because the right was already clearly established at that point.

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
In addition, with respect to our some evidence allegation, in the second proceeding, that right was also clearly established by the Supreme Court's decision in Hill, in which the court was very clear that some evidence must support

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
a guilty verdict in a prison disciplinary context.

[00:18:55] Speaker 04:
What are you trying to get out of this?

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
Do you want restoration of credits or do you want new proceedings?

[00:19:01] Speaker 04:
What are you asking for?

[00:19:02] Speaker 00:
We are asking for damages, Your Honor, and we are asking for a new hearing or some other kind of equitable relief, not the restoration of the good time credits itself, but a proceeding that comports with due process.

[00:19:15] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:19:15] Speaker 04:
Let me see if my colleagues have other questions for you.

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:19:18] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much for your presentation.

[00:19:19] Speaker 04:
Mr. Davis?

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:19:27] Speaker 01:
You know, I want to go to the, because the last statement was pretty surprising to me, because if you go to the last page of the complaint, it says specifically what he's asking for, right?

[00:19:37] Speaker 01:
And one of the things he's specifically asking for is the restoration of those good time credits.

[00:19:40] Speaker 01:
So, you know, the only reason they're saying that now, that they're not asking for the restoration of good time credits, I think is obvious.

[00:19:45] Speaker 01:
It's because they know if they do, then that's barred by a heck, and then the case should be dismissed.

[00:19:50] Speaker 01:
And so I think that's where we are.

[00:19:53] Speaker 01:
We are, your honor.

[00:19:54] Speaker 02:
Well, he also asked for damages, right?

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
Yeah, but the thing is, the fact that they're asking for damages doesn't get them over the heck bar.

[00:20:00] Speaker 01:
They're always asking for damages in 1983.

[00:20:02] Speaker 02:
No, no, I mean, you were saying, I thought you were arguing that he was only asking for damages.

[00:20:07] Speaker 01:
No, sorry, Your Honor, I'm just saying that it's because he's asking for this.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
But one thing I was sort of curious about is that the district court, and I may have misread it, seemed

[00:20:17] Speaker 02:
to be focusing on damages and not the equitable relief.

[00:20:21] Speaker 02:
Is that your reading of it?

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, you probably have a better reading of that for me, so I would defer to Your Honor with respect to that.

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
With respect to the issue of exculpatory evidence, I'm a little bit confused about this, because I don't think, how does he prove his innocence unless there's exculpatory evidence?

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
So unless the evidence is exculpatory, how does he do it?

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
So that's why the reason why you only have to do it.

[00:20:44] Speaker 04:
And if you actually look... Well, I think his position is he needs to be able to defend himself.

[00:20:47] Speaker 04:
So if the contention is that this is inculpatory evidence, he's saying, I need to know what that is to be able to respond to it.

[00:20:53] Speaker 01:
Well, and the problem you have with that side of the thing is you have security concerns in prisons that you just do not have in the outside world.

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
That's why the Supreme Court in Wolf recognized, hey,

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
you know, prisoners just don't have the same type of due process rights outside, inside of prisons as they do outside.

[00:21:06] Speaker 01:
There's huge security concerns.

[00:21:08] Speaker 01:
For example, let's go for the telephone conversations.

[00:21:10] Speaker 01:
Those things are confidential conversations that could, he could use to go against other prisoners if, if he, if that information was disclosed.

[00:21:21] Speaker 01:
The issue about who decides whether or not it is, is not, is not an issue of law in this case because this court has repeatedly held

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
And the Supreme Court, especially if you look at the concurrence, I'm going to go with the concurrence in one of the cases too, if you look at the concurrence in Wolfe, it talks about, it says, hey, you know, the people who do it, the prison people can do this.

[00:21:40] Speaker 01:
As long as they've gone through that process and had reviewed the evidence and said, hey, we've reached this conclusion that there's security concerns involved, that's enough.

[00:21:49] Speaker 01:
And they've done it in camera.

[00:21:50] Speaker 01:
There's repeated evidence in this case that they have done that, reviewed it in camera, and therefore that's the case.

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
With respect to the process claims about the procedure,

[00:22:01] Speaker 01:
the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the procedures, depriving somebody of procedures, the only way you can deprive it is you deprive them of life liberty.

[00:22:08] Speaker 01:
I mean, these people who are providing the notice of charges, who are doing all these other things, how do they know what's going to happen at the end?

[00:22:15] Speaker 01:
I mean, the only people who have the authority to deprive somebody of something is the hearing officers.

[00:22:19] Speaker 01:
I mean, if you take it, for example, and also the grievance responders, for example, it would be insane, for example, to say, hey, this court deprived,

[00:22:29] Speaker 01:
the part of the process because the Supreme Court came to a different conclusion as you did.

[00:22:33] Speaker 01:
You didn't deprive them because you provided the process.

[00:22:35] Speaker 01:
That's what they're doing.

[00:22:36] Speaker 04:
We'll let you go over your time, so I think we have your argument.

[00:22:39] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

[00:22:40] Speaker 04:
Thank both counsel for the briefing and argument.

[00:22:42] Speaker 04:
Mr. Wolfman, thank your clinic for your work in the case.

[00:22:46] Speaker 04:
The case is submitted.