that we are ready for your argument from the underlying involuntary inpatient commitment to the second issue he will go on to say the three month and six month of valuations which you challenge aren't those what kept him in civil commitment where you are it's more than that because he was in the criminal court in the circuit court he was not competent and not restorable on october eighth two thousand and fourteen and that order was an er i believe october fifteenth two thousand and fourteen in the circuit contract with the state hospital that was completed in march of this year and he was and we also have dr phillip resnick who is our expert on how is he going to prosecute this medication if he's incompetent to proceed well that came up in the civil case your honor and the the state courts position on that was that that not competent not restorable only applied to the criminal incompetent to sue on your behalf at least in texas i know that's how it is not necessarily because mrs smith his wife had a power of attorney and and so dialed this case as his next friend and power of attorney or says it's his agent i believe the the complainant in front of me i don't see that well i think the first amended complaint i'm not  that's but that's that's how we've approached all of the civil cases is that mrs smith is his next brandon agent his father pursued the civil claims i mean there's a know the second issue your honor i'd like to touch on is the the status of this case and as far as the at this early stage this was a motion to dism you argue that some of the claims that shouldn't be barred under hack are the ones about getting restraints while he was in the hospital you don't allege the attorneys had anything to do with that do you i mean these are these private attorneys sitting in their law office are these government attorneys sitting in the attorney general's office what could they have had to do with what happened inside the hospital your honor the one except one glaring example and it's i believe it's and exit the transcript from summer december for twenty fourteen which was the first civil commitment hearing in rolling fork mistry perhaps attorney brows chapman showed up at that hearing and i believe it's in that transcript from mr abraham who your client tried and tried to have killed and to what happens in the hospital in terms of restraints being put on your client well because at that point your honor that was december fourth dr smith had been in the attorney sitting in his office i think in greenwood he calls he will mean what he calls up and says strap this guy up with belts and they do it i mean is that your outlandish allegation well it's not it's more to it than that because for believing that these private attorneys one of whom you're trying tried to have killed that resulted in the death of one of the hit men what evidence do you have that he was in some conspiracy that involved getting your client you know under these restraints  in the hospital they have to your question is your honor when mr chapman showed up and represented to the chancellor to that he was there to observe he a chance or say everybody go me see if you can work something out and they excluded maybe from the excluded me is because they were trying to come up with a way we say to continue to incarcerate dr smith in jail when he's when he's under the drift jurisdiction of the chance record for civil commitment and he's not even supposed to be in attorneys i have my question is not whether the attorneys had something to do with him being committed it's whether they anything to do with what happened once he was committed in terms of the allegations you make such as you know the people who saw ended and of the proper licenses he was strapped up that's my question is what because i think those are the things you say going around tech for some free first time free might bar the commitment orders themselves which may be the attorneys were involved in that but so what i'm getting at is this stuff that might escape sending these people to know that your good faith rule eleven now is out on thing but he serves more there's more that's more to it than they had to come started with because because mr mr hood sent these all of these people to rowing for work and to other hearings even before the attorney general was was in the case and so to answer your question there's a cause or connection between all of these behind the scenes machinations and the fact that dr smith was held in jail for months after he was supposed to have supposed to have had a seventy two hour hearing on of the civil commitment statutes and then as far as having him strapped down and all that out to that of a your honor response would  be that all of these people are in the call's old china connection they don't have to show up and say strap the goddamn if they were involved in having dr smith subjected to these unconstitutional  it's hard to cite because it's all circles almost all cirque probably all circumstantial evidence but it's like well you have to make a case that did it there was a definite agreement by somebody to behest of the attorney general and show up at the civil commitment hearings and try to keep him locked up locked up when he was the doctor a doctor anyway in charge of your client so why shouldn't he show up i don't get it why wasn't he isn't he the man and seen so to speak why would his opinion about all this be important because the attorney general in their effort to keep dr smith locked up for evidence can be strong on the stick when there's trial the trial goes in the mail and that's that's really what a lot about about this case is especially at this point where we were it seems that this case is about is that your client and i don't think there's any doubt about it because there recording he tries to kill the lawyer who's handling his ex wife divorce proceeding easy but it's been the right if you were competent he's been the let rest of his life in parchment prison for that because he's incompetent that doesn't it's not a get out of jail free card it's a you go to civil commitment typically and he ends up there and then he's happy unhappy with that and it just to me you're suing anyone who possibly ever had anything to do with this guy without any attempt to tailor specific allegations to those particular well i guess that if you can be completely builtin if you're incompetent you can't go to trial only the government can't prove it and you can't defend yourself because you're not you're not mentally capable of sitting through the proceed that's a big problem with this case and that's really gets back t think the trial being in the mail because the attorney general's office is the one allegedly who shot the guy on the top of the head when he was down and then protested plaited in the drafting the charging documents overnight to charge dr smith even though these people from the g s office or something mr abraham whoever shot the guy on the top of the head and and that's that's been a big problem with all of this from day one and and i mean it's probably i think it's in the record in this court that jim hood the attorney general general hood showed up at the civil commitment hearing and he told the judge well this is the first time i've ever done one of these in the first and the reason is because they shot the guy and they're trying to put it to bed by pinning it on dr smith and keeping him locked up whether it be in jail or in the forensic unit at the state hospital and i mean even it's even the it's really mind boggling because even the guy that they've told us for five years shot the guy on the top of the head when we deposed ham the sage investigator larry where he said i don't know who shot him the top so the further we get into it the worse of it and so our position is your honor that that that these these kinds of behind the scenes underhanded conspiracies are the kind of things that you and other defendants in the case their attorneys have a few things to say after me but i have a few points that i want to make specifically starting with heck i but i believe it's clear that heck applies in the civil commitment the big issue is this argument about temporal and conceptual or temporally and conceptually distinct claims ome i could start with there is judged and as i believe that the reason why you believe this may have been waived and it's also the reason that judge reeves order on the motions to dismiss did not address the temporal and conceptual distinct issue because he never raised it with judge reads before judge reeves decid d the the the order that was entered in october twenty sixth team the only brought that up when he came back on reconsideration of judge reeves original dismissal order on argued that the claims were temporarily in conceptual now the temporal conceptual distinct argument is making relies on the notion that the love floor county chancery court civilly committed mr smith in january of and sixteen and he says that he's got claims that relate to things that took place before january twenty sixth seen and things that relate to after january twenty sixth seen and therefore it is clear he has claims that are temporary distinct that says arguments are appreciate the problem with that is you can't just focus on the january sixth twenty sixteen order and say that that's the only thing that the that the courts that were involved in this process were looking at the only thing that decided there's an order before the january twenty seen order from the criminal court the circuit court in mississippi that provided that smith would be held in the custody of a floor county sheriff both until it c he wasn't being held before his civil commitment illegally he was being held pursuant to an order by the circuit court and if he were county and so if you have a claim that's attacking his being detained before the civil commitment order it's attacking that prior order and i think you make that point oh i'm in the in the brief talk i'm a talking about after again there wasn't just this one order in january twenty sixth it by my count and these are all in the record after this the initial civil commitment order there at least five or six other orders that were entered by the county change record initially which was the court that committed him initially and then the hinds county change record which was the court where he had to go to complain once he had been to the state hospital if you go through what about on the heck issue some of the conduct i know a lot of it relates to what kept him detained in the hospital or committed but what about for example using the restraints i mean that's not really wrapped up in the commitment itself so i would add or that i'm glad you brought me around to that because our position is it is wrapped up this is this is why i'll focus in on that particular client said be wary of twenty six teams february of twenty sixteen was when the hinds county chancery court issued an order that was basically a  you remain silly committed to water the response of smith to that order was first to go out and file this one thousand and three lawsuit against everybody that he sued and it was second to file another motion with the hinds county  question is whether it's an attack on the commitments as opposed to the conditions once he's committed which in a normal exit you ation right i mean you can bring in ninety three to challenge a conviction for bank robbery but you can bring in ninety three to say the prison guard beat the hell out of me and in prison i would agree with that last statement but what i'm getting at here in this is i think it's fair to say a rather unique circumstance a home that we have here he's going to state court and he's saying that these things that we look like are sound like they would be conviction conditions of confinement type issues he's going to the state court and he's saying you've got to let me out because of this you've got to let me out because of the strange strange you've got to let me out because of the psychology treatment this in that he's arguing that to the state court and the state court rejected that the state rejected all of those all of those claims he appealed initially well th doctors did their evaluation they determined that he could go to still remain civil he committed but go to outpatient treatment with the laundry list of restrictions that included there in the order that it's in the record would you have if it's not her board that there were several immunities involved and i think that specifically with the restraints issues the immunity that's going to come into play is the minute it relates to  defendants like in an ordinary case you would think of like the sheriff's office or someone who is responsible for the custody of the defendant but in this case it's the state hospital and the director of the hospital that's responsible for his custody what this r claim is and if you look at the complaint you can you can see this his argument is that he was put in restraints to be carried to him from the courthouse for his hearings and his civil commitment proceedings and he says that that's a violation of m hit it certainly does not your honor but but the point being is is that the immunities which i take is conceded he since he didn't even bother to respond to those and all the amenities cover some of the klein's the eleventh amendment cover some of the claims and we touch on that before it leaves and then heck boars all the claims because they if you go through and you can trace each clinton they all relate to things that were litigated previously and decided against went through he was presented with things at the time he was presented with them this was the call that he made and it brings me around to what i went through the last point about the eleventh amendment and that's where you get in and i appreciate the candor that you seem to recognize or was the district court did make it a little too simple yes and i'd like to explain why the reason why was when we got the complaint and we see one thousand nine hundred three claims against a bunch of state actors we see so called  claims against state actors and the and they and department of health and we see state law claims against state actors the state department of health any time we get a case like that into the civil division the first thing we do is we say you can't sue the mississippi department of mental health in federal court and state law claims that's just a direct hit her problem you also can't sue under one hundred eighty three and get damages and they're not even it's an arm of the state it's not even  eighty three coins his argument coming back to that was that you've waived it because you take federal funds and frankly i don't know what he's talking about i think he's talking about some kind of analysis that you do when there's a rehabilitation act issue that's involved in but nevertheless i know that it's much more complicated to get to the bottom of whether the eleventh i'm at bars eighty eight claims than it is when you're having state law claims or ninety three points so we didn't raise that analysis and whether or not it violates the fourteenth amendment and the a b a or just the a not the fourteenth amendment and go down that road but i think that we would have to do that after own some more extensive legwork if if we had to went in and briefed that to the t o and we've also addressed all the all the other points i don't see the need to address some of this what i consider a way off base point such as that the court didn't take the allegations in the complaint is true like it was supposed to of course you have for the address the issue of a day crimes and you're starting sovereign immunity and lack of her lack of individual mr bell to do he cannot articulate how in the world these private attorneys would be involved in the alleged constitutional deprivations that occurred well after the december two thousand and fourteen commitment hearing the involuntary inpatient civil commitment violated due process and equal protection that that's really the only allegation and i guess these civil conspiracy but what's your read on what are the allegations against your private attorney clients  in the january two thousand and fifteen commitment order your honors that commitment order has been appealed by dr smith to the mississippi supreme court that's in cause number two thousand and fifteen supreme court mississippi eleven sixty three he makes the exact same due process violation contentions in that proceeding as he's making here and the supreme court by procure iom a farm and affirmed that order your honor so we would argue he's precluded from bringing that claim period that those due process violations that are alleged are inextricably intertwined with that january two thousand and fifteen order which has never been overturned and that's the sum total of the allegations against the private attorneys as i read the complaints i see my time is up in our briefly a issues was the default issue that was raised issue number four in the appellate brief and that was we entered a stipulation a joint stipulation but withdrawal of that issue on november twenty seventh so that issues been taken off the table i will not be addressing it although it is addressed in the brief of the second issue i would like to address is the an issue that was raised by the appellant on rebuttal and his reply brief he of the state senate as perhaps more importantly of mr chapman who filed a brief briefing all of the issues that have that have been raised by the appellant rule twenty eight allows such a jointer and the standard is if the arguments are equally a clickable to the adopting co parties then those joiners are allowed in the interest of the additional efficiency so you don't have to read three more fifty page briefs asserting the same arguments the only limitation on that is which which was not mentioned in the reply brief by the appellant is if there are facts specific it if the claims are arguments rely on something fact specific then they may not be adopted with a simple jointer there needs to be some explanation as we've seen here today we do not have that there were no specific very few if any specific facts alleged against pleading where there is an allegation of conspiracy between state and non state actors that there must be an agreement smith not only doesn't alleging any specific facts as to such an agreement he doesn't even allege there was dennis brought up this point about if mr smith dr smith is incompetent how can he file a lawsuit and the complaint i have in front of me just shows he brought in his own name not that his wife or anyone else brought on his behalf has as that been an issue in this case otoh if you want to respond to what plaintiff's counsel said that that's not really a problem and i do i do believe that's a problem i cannot speak right now that's been raised any time along this litigation but no it was  one thing i find i get lost in the complexity of all this is just cutting to the chase in the one place where you know right now is that we have to assume that all of the allegations conclusions well in there that i'm not sure i'm not sure what effect they have well there's a lot of facts there's there's a lot of factual there a lot of factual allegations want to example complaints is the department of justice letter from their investigation of the department of mental health and we adopted those allegations and as an exhibit and into the comply and that's one example of footnote yes he does your brief challenge that i know there's a challenge but now because it wasn't a basis for judge raised dismissing the complaint he just said even if i wasn't going to bar it dismiss it for heck and then i would do that but locked up illegally they don't have immunity for that they don't have immunity for mating with private toward attorneys in the middle and as part of a civil commitment hearing when the when the person who's being committed is not his lawyer is not even allowed in the room for over an hour so that's part of the problem your honor and kind of goes with what you asked earlier was the conspiracy the judge said everybody go meet and figure something out and i don't like their they don't want the person who sued them now three or four times that that's