it's really not rocket science this was a case of a young man incarcerated in the juvenile hall in orange county and he needed mental health care and he didn't get it and the defense moved for summ judgment and they said well we have a doctor's report that says it doesn't matter you know kids like this can't do anything to help them we had a doctor's report that said that he needed mental health care needed treatment that he wasn't getting and the judge and the judge for some reason said well that's a legislative the session but of course it's not a summary judgment and there were clearly significant factual issues so i don't think it's a bit i really never thought this case was rock that well it's difficult but it's not rocket science basically it should be reversed it should be sent back for trial on the merits as to page sixteen which is apparently paginated this page fifty the court says line seven mr herman i'm going to make a court order i will give you one so one week from today that's next monday to furnish the court a short statement in opposition the short statement in opposition to the motion for summary judgment should cite chapter and verse of the doctor's opinion or a doctor's report to establish that the individual is a disabled person and then he was happened was the judge fashion and i and i appreciated it at the time fashion the ability for me to oppose told me what he wanted which was the doctor's report and the finding in the doctor's report what was wrong did and then he issued an opinion that said well you can comply well but that's just not fair you know the judge should have said  want a one hundred percent good kosher response and opposition and i'll give you a week to do it or i didn't say that and what he said was this is what i want you to do  this is what's wrong with him now a real real psychiatric problems and this is what needs to be done to take care of him which they haven't done what was the precise disability out and he may have had post traumatic stress syndrome as well but the basic problem was the pressure and this is that this young man who attempted to commit suicide on a regular basis and was punished by attempting to commit suicide on a regular basis and we got into the federal court because what happened was when he was depressed and attempted to commit suicide then he didn't get he said occasional benefits because you can go to school because i was punishment and because he was clearly disabled and wasn't getting benefits or the disabilities act as he wasn't getting treatment he needed to correct the disability that this was this young man was just unfortunately is just someone with serious mental health problems which is which just simply weren't addressed by the people who hold him in so you have the three diagnosis conduct disorder that's a depressive disorder not otherwise specified in poly substance abuse right and the only one that could be considered a safe qualify under the a probably depression right i would agree with that although conduct disorder is a very strange thing is there a case that says the kind of disorder is recognized and there there is disability part of the report doesn't say it's depression to the point that the person can't function it doesn't say that but it gives the history and the history includes multiple the actions that he takes which are recorded indicate his inability to function you can't be functioning if you're committing suicide so it is a disability judge defender's office brought in because they were you know quite frankly they were very concerned that they had a young man who had been there since he was twelve years old and was there until he was eighteen and who just didn't get anything like the level of treatment that he needed which was available i mean it of the doctor's report says this type of mental health problem is treatable and this is how we treat  filed at the time of the hearing of the motion for summary judgment judge taylor asked where the opposition was there wasn't any he then gave extended time to file one mr herman did not file and even then filed it late and then we got a two page report that didn't have the doctor signature was in the sworn affidavit and we can go on and on about procedural deficiencies which i think are in and of itself reason to uphold the court's decision but if we if we get even with we get pas the fourth amended complaint by the time the plaintiff got it right in terms of its of his pleading there it's twice i believe mentioned paragraphs eleven and thirteen if i'm correct that he is saying he did not get adequate medical care certain functions provided by the institution just a mere claim for medical malpractise does not fit within the gambit of the acts so so and but and aside from that i believe cases show that a person is fourteenth amendment right is no longer valid and it can no longer be claimed once he's a convicted prisoner so if you look at the for the many complaint there really is no claim for cruel and unusual punishment where the in deliberate indifference standard would come into play unless you look at the california constitutional claim that of course doesn't survive without a federal claim so what do you know as i read the district court's judgment its ruling on the t page zero zero zero five five five we're talking about the merits and i believe it indicates in there that that the state claims can survive well unusual punishment which i don't think there was there was nothing dr reed testified in his declaration that he provided psychiatric counseling to the plaintiff there was no nobody refuted that there was no claim that there was an educational deficiency or that that he was receiving his educational what he deserved to receive in terms of his education there was a claim of course by the plaintiff that he wasn't but i took the plaintiff stuff position which was the only deposition in the case and he indicated and i included it in my separate statement that he had no problem with with his educational needs in fact he was getting even beast for a while i pointed that out there just simply if you go from i that would show deliberate indifference or just simply isn't primarily because there wasn't but also because there there was no substantive evidence proffered by the plaintiffs in rebuttal to the summary judgment motion so i am at a loss to see i read that is that the court was looking at the federal claims and then just simply said this if this was a malpractise this was a negligence action i suppose that plaintiffs claims could survive but there is no there can be no negligence intentional infliction of emotional distress call for any constitutional climes  because you know i think judge taylor went beyond the call of duty giving the plaintiff many chances to provide some sort of evidence and if you look at if we if we say dr baf his report is complete and it isn't if we look at the two pages she agrees with the defense's medical expert in with dr reid that he has conduct disorder and he has the depression and i think we got to the merits if we had to get to the merits of this case i don't understand  showing is that the county provides treatment services authorized by law and plaintiff's contention that better services could be provided just like reliability that's that's the entirety of the district court's analysis and i think if i remember the way well i understand it but i don't think there was any evidence proffered that showed by the plaintiff that he wasn't getting adequate medical care so how could a negligence claim survive there was no evidence that he wasn't getting proper care i think what dr baf said in her report is that he should be transferred to an out of state facility where he could get the care that she thought he deserved she never indicated that he didn't get proper care she just thought he could get better care in addition to that i think i pointed out in my in my brief that the juvenile court decides where an individual is held in the juvenile court is not part of the or the part of the county of are unsure if in any way fully with my the clients so if the juvenile court decides that someone is going to stay in juvenile hall we can provide them the services we can provide them to the best ability that we can do so if but an outside doctor comes in who was hired by the public defender and says we believe this person should go to an outside institution to get better care not because the care is negligent that he's getting but he needs more better care they can only get in a private institution well it seems to me it's incumbent upon the juvenile court to make a decision as to whether that individual's going to  my clients don't make that decision that evidence is unrefuted other provision apartment can't make that decision and the county of orange can make that decision only the court can so i think the key here in your question with regard to the negligence claim the state claim if you will is that i don't believe any evidence was proffered by the plaintiffs that showed that the care he was getting was in any way negligent dr bhatia indicated that that she felt he could get better care at a private institution because the  because juvenile hall was just simply not equipped to deal in her opinion with with the with his illnesses and her the question the all of the analysis having to do with prisoners adult prisoners is inappropriate and we're dealing with a child who went into the juvenile hall of the age of twelve and the custodial authority was the juvenile hall that judges had ordered him in there doesn't mean that the judge was the custodian when one when the judge sen someone to prison the judge is not the custodian the prison is the custodian in this case the juvenile hall was the custodian but the education that put him into the juvenile hall certainly didn't make  a sentenced prisoner in any sense of the federal law because a judge juveniles different he's not a criminal judge children children in that system children who are not let's let's assume your honor that you break your leg and they put it and someone puts a bandage on it that's treatment but that's negligence and that's exactly what happened this was the band aid they were not in this facility and the doctors and the care providers they had were not adequate to treat this young man who was severely disabled had severe mental health problems so that he couldn't function and that's that's just the bottom line and that's what dr buss said that is not really controverted what happened with doctrinaire is he said well it's conduct disorder and we can't do anything with people conduct disorder because they always have conduct disorder and it's on treatable which by the way is not true that's there is there are psychiatry to have that opinion there are probably many more psycho psychologists who have exactly the opposite opinion and people who deal with young people who are having difficulties who say that it is addressable so that what the court did was adopted wholeheartedly the fence doctors position and that's not summary judgment the issue was whether whether there was an issue of fact and there clearly was and i was surprised that summary