[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
I just have a couple comments that I'm going to make before we start.

[00:00:04] Speaker 00:
So if you want to sit down for a second, you can be comfy.

[00:00:08] Speaker 00:
Judges Sung and Nguyen and I welcome everyone to the Ninth Circuit here today.

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
I guess we have some special guests from, is it Lake Ridge High School?

[00:00:18] Speaker 00:
all right, who are going to be observing.

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
So extra pressure on the lawyers today because you've got young aspiring lawyers possibly watching as far as that goes.

[00:00:28] Speaker 00:
I'm going to basically call, I'm going to handle the submitted cases first and then

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
I'll call the cases otherwise in the order that they're on the calendar.

[00:00:37] Speaker 00:
If you are here for oral argument today, you have an amount next to your case as to how much time the court has allowed you.

[00:00:46] Speaker 00:
If you are the appellant in the case, for example, the first case for argument is 10 minutes each side.

[00:00:53] Speaker 00:
And if you're the appellant, the 10 minutes includes any time you wish to reserve for rebuttal.

[00:00:59] Speaker 00:
You are responsible for keeping track of your time.

[00:01:02] Speaker 00:
However, the clock counts down, and I'm looking right at it, and then it goes up.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
And just because it goes up, it doesn't mean I gave you extra time.

[00:01:11] Speaker 00:
time, it means you've moved into overtime.

[00:01:13] Speaker 00:
So you risk the possibility of being done.

[00:01:15] Speaker 00:
I will tell you, however, while I realize that all of the advocates have things that they want to tell us, you have to understand that we also consider oral argument our time because we have to decide your cases.

[00:01:28] Speaker 00:
So, and I want to make sure that I and my colleagues have any opportunity to ask any quick

[00:01:34] Speaker 00:
any questions that we have in order to decide your cases.

[00:01:38] Speaker 00:
So if when the clock runs out, one of the judges is asking you questions, you don't need to ask permission to continue, just answer the judge's questions.

[00:01:52] Speaker 00:
And if I feel that we've taken up all of your time,

[00:01:56] Speaker 00:
I may give you a little additional time for rebuttal, but that just depends on if we have additional questions as far as that goes.

[00:02:03] Speaker 00:
So when you come to the podium, if aspirationally you want to save a certain amount of time for rebuttal, if you let me know, I'll try to remind you when the time comes up, but as you know,

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
It's sort of, it's a fluid process in terms of argument.

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
So Marisala Rodriguez-Ramos versus Merrick Garland, case number 23-1683, that's submitted on briefs, will be submitted as of this date.

[00:02:32] Speaker 00:
Roderick Dressler versus Martin O'Malley, 23-3092, submitted on the briefs, will be submitted as of this date.

[00:02:41] Speaker 00:
Omar Leonardo Cepeda Vigoya, 23-4294, submitted on the briefs, will be submitted as of this date.

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
Jose Remberto Escalante-Onzora, 23-936, submitted on the briefs, submitted as of this date.

[00:03:00] Speaker 00:
Franz Gabriel Nantipia-Velecella versus Merrick Garland, 24-208, submitted on the briefs, will be submitted as of this date.

[00:03:10] Speaker 00:
Heon Sang Fields, 24-2344, that's versus Martin O'Malley, submitted on the briefs and is submitted as of this date.

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
Let's see.

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
Then we have United States of America versus Gorgonza submitted on the briefs.

[00:03:35] Speaker 00:
That's 24-904 and submitted as of this date.

[00:03:40] Speaker 00:
And now we'll head into the argument cases.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
The first matter on for argument is Stephen Anderson versus the IDOC policy administration.

[00:03:50] Speaker 00:
Each side has 10 minutes total.

[00:03:53] Speaker 00:
In this matter, I note that counsel for Mr. Anderson was a pro bono appointment in this matter.

[00:04:02] Speaker 00:
And just so that I don't forget later, while we appreciate all of the lawyers that come to court, the pro bono program is something that we have all state for the students where someone is representing themselves in a civil case, but the court for one reason or another thinks it would be helpful.

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
to have counsel appointed and assist and we have a pro bono panel that we go to and people accept appointment and then they handle it for in this case it was a pro se prisoner case as far as that goes.

[00:04:35] Speaker 00:
So I would like to thank pro bono counsel in advance

[00:04:40] Speaker 00:
It's always helpful for the court to have both sides represented by counsel.

[00:04:44] Speaker 00:
We especially appreciate people doing pro bono work and assisting the court.

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
But we appreciate all of you that are here doing work for the court.

[00:04:54] Speaker 00:
And so we're ready to proceed.

[00:04:57] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:04:59] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:05:00] Speaker 02:
I'm Adriana Simonelli from Perkins Cooey appearing on behalf of Appellant Stephen Anderson through the Ninth Circuit's Pro Bono program.

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.

[00:05:11] Speaker 02:
I'd like to respectfully request two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
I will be sure to watch the clock.

[00:05:16] Speaker 02:
Mr. Anderson asks this court to reverse the district court, find that Heck does not bar his claims for prospective relief, order the district court to apply this circuit's relevant case law, and remand for further proceeding on the merits.

[00:05:31] Speaker 02:
Unless the court has questions, I plan to focus my arguments on this court's opinions in Martin and Thornton and how- Well, I do have a question that I want to ask you about your damages claim.

[00:05:41] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:05:42] Speaker 00:
In your briefs, you frame Mr. Anderson's claim as one for prospective relief.

[00:05:46] Speaker 00:
I think it's, but on ER 17, the First Amendment complaint requests compensatory and punitive damages.

[00:05:54] Speaker 00:
Are you challenging the district court's order to the extent it dismissed Mr. Anderson's claim for damages?

[00:06:00] Speaker 00:
If so, where do you make that damages argument in your briefs?

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
And if so, what is your best argument authority that Mr. Anderson's claim for damages is not heck barred?

[00:06:10] Speaker 02:
I do not have authority at this time to waive my client's claim for damages.

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
I would say that the district court had the authority to look at the constellation of claims that Mr. Anderson brought and could parse those claims.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
That's what this panel, this court did in Thornton.

[00:06:30] Speaker 02:
There was a claim for damages.

[00:06:31] Speaker 00:
But the district court dismissed Mr. Anderson's claims for damages, right?

[00:06:36] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
So where do you make the argument in your brief that you're challenging that dismissal?

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
I don't think that I do.

[00:06:45] Speaker 02:
My brief focuses primarily on his claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief.

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
So it is possible, if we don't find any authority, that his damages claims might be heck barred, correct?

[00:06:59] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:06:59] Speaker 02:
But I would say that they are not necessarily heck barred.

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
They are only heck barred to the extent that they imply the invalidity of his underlying incarceration.

[00:07:08] Speaker 03:
Just to be perfectly clear, you're not challenging the second parole condition at all, right?

[00:07:14] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:07:15] Speaker 02:
The violation.

[00:07:17] Speaker 03:
So your argument is that

[00:07:20] Speaker 03:
We should remand on both the damages and the prospective relief claim because there's no heck bar issue here.

[00:07:27] Speaker 03:
So the second parole violation alone could support his incarceration.

[00:07:33] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:07:34] Speaker 02:
Mr. Anderson was found to have violated two conditions of his parole.

[00:07:38] Speaker 02:
He only challenges the prospective enforcement of the parole condition that limits his access to the internet or a computer.

[00:07:44] Speaker 02:
He does not challenge the parole condition that he violated his aftercare plan.

[00:07:51] Speaker 02:
And this court in Fortin had found when a prisoner was challenging only two conditions of his parole, that that did not affect his status as a parolee or his other parole conditions that he was subjected to.

[00:08:06] Speaker 02:
And he could bring that challenge prospectively.

[00:08:09] Speaker 03:
He's now out of custody?

[00:08:10] Speaker 02:
Mr. Anderson is out of custody on parole in southeastern Idaho.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
So if we were to remand this case, do you know whether Mr. Anderson would have counsel to represent him?

[00:08:20] Speaker 02:
My engagement letter with Mr. Anderson is purely for purposes of this appeal in front of the Ninth Circuit.

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
I do not know if he would have counsel through the District of Idaho.

[00:08:33] Speaker 00:
Assuming that Mr. Anderson's claims are not heck barred, has he sued the right defendants or does he need leave to amend to name any different defendants?

[00:08:42] Speaker 02:
I think as the state points out in its briefing, Mr. Anderson did name some of the wrong entities and I think would welcome the opportunity to amend his complaint to be more clear about the individuals and entities that he's...

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
So to me, it's a little bit, there's a on the heck bar.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
When Mr. Anderson filed his first amended complaint and when the district court dismissed it, he was still incarcerated, but he's not incarcerated anymore.

[00:09:12] Speaker 00:
So what would have happened if Mr. Anderson had succeeded on his claims and the district court had declared special condition 10 unconstitutional?

[00:09:21] Speaker 00:
Would that have entitled him to an earlier release?

[00:09:24] Speaker 02:
it would not have entitled him to an earlier release.

[00:09:27] Speaker 02:
His amended complaint only sought to enjoin the prospective enforcement and sought declaratory relief.

[00:09:35] Speaker 04:
Well, our case law says it's not just you can't cleat around heck by limiting your request for a relief.

[00:09:41] Speaker 04:
So if it necessarily implied the invalidity of his incarceration, that would invoke the heck bar.

[00:09:52] Speaker 04:
My question would be whether the second parole violation was independently sufficient to, whether his whole parole revocation and time in prison was based solely on the second violation or essentially whether they were being, he was serving the parole violations concurrently such that the invalidation of one of them would not have affected his term of custody.

[00:10:21] Speaker 02:
That's my understanding.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
Mr. Anderson had violated both conditions of parole and was serving a period of incarceration for violating both conditions.

[00:10:29] Speaker 02:
So affording him relief would not have led to his speedier or more timely release from that incarceration.

[00:10:37] Speaker 02:
That's my understanding.

[00:10:38] Speaker 04:
How do we know that from the record?

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
The record is thinner than I think it would have been had Mr. Anderson had counsel below.

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure it's immediately apparent, but the record does demonstrate that he violated both of those parole conditions and his incarceration was tied to both of those parole conditions.

[00:10:58] Speaker 00:
Well, can we avoid the issue of whether it was Heckbard at the time he was incarcerated and just deal with it now?

[00:11:07] Speaker 00:
I think that he's not incarcerated.

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
Yes, the fact that Mr. Anderson's not incarcerated right now, I think, makes this case much easier for the panel to decide.

[00:11:15] Speaker 02:
It's factually analogous to Martin.

[00:11:18] Speaker 00:
Well, we don't conference on these before we come, but it seems to me it would be easier on that.

[00:11:23] Speaker 00:
Yes, certainly.

[00:11:24] Speaker 00:
So do we really have to decide the harder one?

[00:11:28] Speaker 02:
I think that the panel could remand to the district court and let Mr. Anderson amend his complaint and proceed under Section 1983 now that he is not incarcerated.

[00:11:39] Speaker 02:
I do think there's some confusion here by the district court and perhaps by the state around this court's precedent in Martin and Thornton that it may be helpful to clarify.

[00:11:50] Speaker 00:
Well, it's always helpful, but that doesn't make it easy sometimes.

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
I would agree.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
So, but you could be satisfied with just winning on the ladder as opposed to a double win.

[00:12:08] Speaker 02:
I could.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
Yes, that's correct.

[00:12:11] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:12:13] Speaker 02:
I see that I am approaching my two minutes.

[00:12:15] Speaker 02:
Unless the panel has any further questions, I'd like to.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
You can reserve it then.

[00:12:18] Speaker 00:
Excellent.

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:12:30] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:12:31] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Sean Corker for Idaho Department of Corrections Defendants Appellees.

[00:12:37] Speaker 01:
Plaintiff focuses on two cases, Martin and Thorn.

[00:12:40] Speaker 01:
Both these cases are inapplicable since the plaintiff was in prison when the district judge made his decision.

[00:12:46] Speaker 01:
The district court rightly ruled that an imprisoned plaintiff cannot use 1983 to sue the state for the very reason he is confined.

[00:12:53] Speaker 01:
In fact, under heck, a 1983 action is barred.

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
His success in that action would even imply... There were two parole conditions.

[00:12:59] Speaker 03:
He's not challenging the second one.

[00:13:01] Speaker 03:
Why doesn't that make a difference?

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
Because heck refers to confinement or duration.

[00:13:05] Speaker 01:
The fact that the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Paroles stated that he was being re-incarcerated for both those two conditions means that that particular incarceration or duration is invalid and would need to be re-sentenced.

[00:13:20] Speaker 03:
uh... the purpose of this part of the course and i think that the length of incarceration is both based on the violation both conditions that's the that's the analysis right that's correct uh... and the i don't board commission seems to agree based on their reading of its they there were very clear that it was two violations for which he was being re-incarcerated for i'm not sure why the states fighting this so hard he's out of custody now he's challenging a condition that

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
Debate was to whether the breath of this condition had any close nexus to the offense of conviction.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
Doesn't he get to, he can refile the lawsuit, I suppose, even if you wouldn't on this one, and challenge the condition of parole.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
He is on lifetime parole, right?

[00:14:09] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
What is it that you want us to do?

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
We have no problem with refiling the complaint.

[00:14:16] Speaker 01:
We believe, under current Ninth Circuit precedent under Thornton, you are allowed to use 1983 to challenge a parole condition.

[00:14:22] Speaker 01:
The only question in front of this court is whether the district court was right when it made its decision at the time it made its decision.

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
But now he's not incarcerated.

[00:14:30] Speaker 01:
Now he's not incarcerated.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
And so is it your position then, if we consider it now,

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
He's it's not heck barred.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
Is that correct?

[00:14:42] Speaker 01:
That's correct under current Ninth Circuit precedent Thorne has no issue with using 1983 to challenge parole conditions So if we so I said is there a way to avoid?

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
Deciding at the time that he was incarcerated whether it was heck barred and just deal with right now he can send it back and he can he's it that it's clearly not heck barred now and

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
This is a court of review, not a court of first impression.

[00:15:09] Speaker 01:
I would recommend that this case be refiled so we could argue in front of the district court any particular issues.

[00:15:14] Speaker 04:
What difference does that make?

[00:15:17] Speaker 04:
Why would you insist on affirmance versus remand with Lee Tuman?

[00:15:24] Speaker 01:
It's only because we are trying to hold the fact that the district court was right when it made its decision and that an incarcerated plaintiff cannot use 1983 to sue the state.

[00:15:36] Speaker 04:
you want the law you want us to say as a matter of law that the district court was correct that's correct but let's say we dodge it and just remand it and he can file it now and that's the

[00:15:50] Speaker 00:
But what's the so you don't get the law that you want, but you acknowledge that he can file that anyway.

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
We do acknowledge that he can refile.

[00:16:00] Speaker 01:
Our only question here is whether the district judge was right when he made its decision.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
And it does seem that he was based on current precedent.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
I would like to focus no analysis trying to tease the two parole conditions apart, though.

[00:16:14] Speaker 01:
Sorry, can you repeat that?

[00:16:15] Speaker 03:
There was no analysis by the district court trying to tease the two parole conditions apart.

[00:16:21] Speaker 03:
So one parole condition can be struck down as constitutional, and that doesn't necessarily mean that the period of incarceration is invalid.

[00:16:31] Speaker 01:
I would say it necessary implies that either the incarceration or the duration is invalid.

[00:16:37] Speaker 01:
The parole board was clear in the fact that it focused on two breaking conditions and reincarcerated based on breaking two conditions.

[00:16:46] Speaker 01:
It's impossible to just take out one and not have any effect.

[00:16:50] Speaker 01:
For instance, let's say a person is put to prison for 40 years for two murders.

[00:16:56] Speaker 01:
If he's proven innocent on one murder, he would have to be resentenced.

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
So do you dispute that the district court erred in ruling on a superseded version of the complaint?

[00:17:08] Speaker 00:
And if so, where do you make that argument in your briefs?

[00:17:11] Speaker 01:
I don't think it matters.

[00:17:13] Speaker 01:
It's a 12b6 motion.

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
It's reviewed de novo.

[00:17:18] Speaker 01:
So we have the operative complaint in front of us.

[00:17:21] Speaker 01:
And all we look at in our brief is the fact that independently, the fact that he's challenging the very reason he's incarcerated is enough to be barred by heck.

[00:17:32] Speaker 01:
I would like to spend a moment differentiating Martin and Thornton.

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
First, Thornton was never in prison for violating his parole.

[00:17:40] Speaker 01:
That case was merely about whether you're allowed to challenge a condition of parole, and the reasoning was based on the fact that the

[00:17:49] Speaker 01:
that confinement is different than condition of parole.

[00:17:53] Speaker 01:
And same thing with Martin.

[00:17:54] Speaker 01:
None of the plaintiffs who succeeded in Martin were imprisoned at the time they filed suit.

[00:18:03] Speaker 01:
Martin actually explicitly brings up the fact that the Supreme Court statement, the heck bar applies no matter the relief sought.

[00:18:09] Speaker 01:
And they distinguished it because that statement applies to, I quote,

[00:18:17] Speaker 01:
equitable relief concerning an existing confinement.

[00:18:21] Speaker 01:
In other words, the Ninth Circuit has been clear that being imprisoned and challenging a claim is different than being out of prison and challenging a claim.

[00:18:30] Speaker 01:
The heck bar is fair.

[00:18:34] Speaker 01:
There were other potential avenues for the plaintiff to attack this case.

[00:18:39] Speaker 01:
Before confinement and now, he could use 1983 to attack his conditions of parole.

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
Alternatively, habeas was an option under Idaho Code 19-4205.

[00:18:50] Speaker 01:
Alternatively, during confinement, to challenge the revocation of his parole, he could have used habeas or a direct appeal.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
there it's it's not like there were other options available plaintiff has just chosen the wrong option here the heck bar applies to their stories about the damages you heard me ask your friend on the other side about uh... that i think the district court dismissed mister anderson's claim for damages and they didn't argue in their brief didn't challenge that so are

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
are his claim for damages heck barred?

[00:19:24] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:19:25] Speaker 01:
Both his claim for damages and his claim for declaratory relief are heck barred.

[00:19:29] Speaker 01:
Roy Heck, when he sued, was asking for damages.

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
And Edwards was asking for declaratory relief.

[00:19:34] Speaker 01:
The Supreme Court was clear that those claims are heck barred.

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
What about now?

[00:19:39] Speaker 04:
Could he file a claim for damages now?

[00:19:42] Speaker 01:
No, only prospective relief.

[00:19:45] Speaker 04:
Even though he's not in custody anymore?

[00:19:46] Speaker 01:
Even though he's not in custody.

[00:19:51] Speaker 01:
I would like to take a moment to just go through the timing of this.

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
Plaintiff was arrested.

[00:19:59] Speaker 01:
After his arrest, the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole formally revoked his parole and incarcerated him.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
Only after that did plaintiff file an amended complaint, and the district judge made his decision.

[00:20:12] Speaker 01:
So to be clear, he was in prison.

[00:20:15] Speaker 01:
And any time you necessarily implied the invalidity of the punishment imposed, it is barred by heck.

[00:20:21] Speaker 01:
The purpose of HECC is to keep suits on one defined path, ensure there's no inconsistent judgments, and let states sort out any constitutional issues themselves before federal court intervention.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
So assuming that Mr. Anderson's claims are not HECC-barred now, has he sued the right defendants or does he need leave to amend to name different defendants?

[00:20:48] Speaker 01:
The district court read the, I think he named it the Idaho Policy.

[00:20:53] Speaker 01:
I don't remember the exact name.

[00:20:54] Speaker 01:
It's not a real organization.

[00:20:56] Speaker 01:
But the district court read it to include both the commission and the Idaho Department of Corrections, which is correct.

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
So there's no need to amend on that basis, because the district judge did correct that in his reasoning.

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
So if we were to remand, you would not dispute that he had essentially effectively named the correct defendants?

[00:21:22] Speaker 01:
I would say that it wouldn't make any difference to saying whether the gist judge is correct or incorrect, because the gist or judge read the complaint as saying that.

[00:21:33] Speaker 01:
So, again, plaintiff's appeal must fail, first, by necessarily implying the invalidity of his confinement.

[00:21:39] Speaker 01:
Plaintiff's claims are clearly barred by heck.

[00:21:42] Speaker 01:
Second, Martin and Thornton are inapplicable since the plaintiff was incarcerated at the time of the district court's decision.

[00:21:47] Speaker 01:
And third, the judge's alleged error in deciding the case by supposedly relying on the original complaint is irrelevant.

[00:21:56] Speaker 00:
There don't appear to be additional questions.

[00:21:59] Speaker 01:
No more questions?

[00:21:59] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:22:05] Speaker 02:
The Heck Doctrine serves to ensure the finality and validity of previous convictions, not to insulate future prosecutions from challenge.

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
That is from this court's opinion in Martin v. City of Boise.

[00:22:18] Speaker 02:
I'd contend here that the fact of Mr. Anderson's incarceration is a red herring.

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
He could always use Section 1983,

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
whether he was incarcerated or not, to prospectively challenge the parole condition.

[00:22:31] Speaker 02:
The state and the district court remain in need of guidance from this panel.

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
Yes, the panel could vacate, but I believe a short MemDISPO clarifying the applicability of Martin and Thornton here would be of great use.

[00:22:46] Speaker 04:
So are you arguing that while incarcerated he had limited his complaint?

[00:22:51] Speaker 04:
clearly only to perspective relief, there would have been no heck bar.

[00:22:55] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:22:55] Speaker 02:
And I think that's exactly what Mr. Anderson did here.

[00:22:58] Speaker 02:
You saw in the record, he removed the claim for retaliation from the original complaint to the amended complaint.

[00:23:08] Speaker 02:
I think that's the only claim that could be construed as

[00:23:11] Speaker 02:
perhaps implying the invalidity of the underlying incarceration.

[00:23:15] Speaker 02:
I think the damages claim is an open question, as the panel identified.

[00:23:19] Speaker 02:
But his claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief are not barred merely by the fact of his incarceration.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
The claims he brings need to necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement.

[00:23:31] Speaker 00:
Well, I don't know that we acknowledge that the damages claim is open.

[00:23:35] Speaker 00:
I said it was dismissed and you didn't challenge it.

[00:23:39] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:23:39] Speaker 00:
I misspoke.

[00:23:40] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:23:41] Speaker 00:
I agree.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
Just want to make sure I heard what you said because I didn't think I said that you did not okay I meant to convey what you said and I in artfully did it Thank you for catching that I'd also like to close and say that the state here conceded in its briefing that mr. Anderson's amended complaint does not necessarily imply the invalidity it conceded repeatedly in the brief that nowhere does his amended complaint necessarily imply the invalidity of his underlying incarceration and

[00:24:13] Speaker 02:
There's no more questions.

[00:24:15] Speaker 00:
There do not appear to be additional questions.

[00:24:16] Speaker 00:
Thank you both for your argument.

[00:24:18] Speaker 00:
This matter is submitted on the briefs.

[00:24:19] Speaker 00:
I mean submitted as of this time.

[00:24:22] Speaker 00:
Thank you.