and we move to the october twentieth two thousand and thirteen around ten pm at night mr mutter was returning home from a long evening of studying for his dentistry school he was a second y r student at the defendant's universe of illinois chicago campus and that day he was with a friend of his walking home from studies when he sees what appeared to him a strong armed robbery taking place he saw a man large man beating up a woman and his first instinct was to approach from a safe distance and call out to the woman and ask her if she needed help if she was in trouble what was going on to which the man turned his attention from the woman and charged my client approached him in a threatening matter and my client pulled out a concealed handgun this stopped the individual dead in his tracks he wasn't happy no say did mr x you stuck point take it he stopped in his tracks and then returned back to the woman that he had been victimizing turned out to be his girlfriend and the two of them got back in their car and sped off in the mean time my client's friend had been on the telephone with the chicago police department saying that they were witnessing an attack but the legal issues in this case judge is that we filed a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief clara tory relief and relief in general based upon his second amendment right to carry that concealed weapon that concealed firearm his fourth amendment right for unreasonable searches and seizures his fifth amendment right of for both procedural and substantive due judge first of all as to the move to this question it isn't move necessarily because he's still on the hook with the air force for the money that the front of him for his first year and his second year of law school so that he so long we are also seeking the damages that we saw from the beginning which is why in the first place we don't you just said two different things at the front end and the back end of that sentence you said originally you just prospective relief now you want damages but if your if the operative pleading as the case comes to us says the prospect of relief in the form of reinstatement only then that's the universe that we're dealing with here well to that specific question judge the mere fact that my client was not allowed to return to school also precluded him from applying to other state schools based upon the same conditions we can't and no court can order him it to some other state school that's not a defendant in this action right to self deal with what you asked farm originally and why is that not moot because he can now be applied that the time has run his suspension his run or expulsion term is when he can reapply understanding of that is that the particular rule here that we were seeking in the beginning was the forty two u s c one thousand nine hundred eighty three case which prevented or permits all individuals to file a lawsuit seeking monetary and other damages for violations of their constitutional right by state and local governments and their officials which says that every person who under color of law of any statute ordinance regulation custom or usage of any state subjects any citizen of the united states or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured now whether that's monetary damages in terms of prospect of relief so that he can be reinstated or so that he can attend another dental school remember he has to start from ground zero that first year and part of the second year he can't rely on that anymore there are no transcripts that he could put forward and be reinstated as a second year venice and it would be the equivalent if i were in law school it kicked out in my second year that i would have to start over from the first year again so there are damages here whether you call them prospect of damages there's nothing moving about this case it's taken a long time you can't do that not a suitable person i can lie to the university either not a suitable person you can sue individual government officials or prospected relief of an ongoing suit the legal impediment to my suit is the eleventh the men we claimed from the very beginning that the eleventh amendment cannot possibly bar a person's right to defend themselves a person's right not to be interrogated and not to be put in jail because they're exercising their constitutional protected rights and that was dismissed and now here we are almost four years later and mr motor his still has this cloud hanging over his head diddy a real one he tried to apply to the down state school judge and he they haven't moved to disenroll that's correct was he on active duty when he applied to go to medical he was on a active reserve whereby he was being paid to go to dental school they were paying for the dental school and they were giving him a stipend to live on and after dental school he would have an obligation to serve it for years yes or no you know that's the it's a good program it's a great program judge unfortunately for mr mater there were two students not for two students that signed spurious complaints against and that's the only thing that was litigated in the criminal case the other the other issues of not having a foil car all of that was dismissed on motions there was no legal basis for his arrest there was no legal basis for the charges against him and quite frankly without me having any better words there was no basis for him to get thrown out of school and to be held at all this time now judge sykes here to your statement i respectfully agree with you i know that he could have reapply after two years and people do have a duty to themselves to overcome adversity even if adversity says ok we only punish you for two years however you have to start back from the beginning and you have to forego any of the payments that were already made by the air force and that would be great if he had some kind of underlying culpability in this case but he had no culpability in this case what he did was he was a a good samaritan who was clearly clearly brought to an unrecognizable justice because he defended himself with a handgun and now the law has changed in illinois and that's why the defense or the plaintiffs dismissed the issues dealing with the unconstitutionality of the illinois position on concealed weapons that law has changed that's why he got directed finding on those so i'm just here argu good morning honors me please the court counsel my name is michael warner and i represent the university of illinois and the way to university official defendants it's framed by the plaintiff the sole issue in this appeal is whether the lower court erred in dismissing his constitutional point claims under the eleventh amendment sovereign immunity provision because as a district court correctly held the only possible exception to sovereign immunity here is a suit against university officials in their official capacity for perspective injunctive relief this appeal is  his application to other state schools is not an issue or in this case and there's nothing that this court can address on the sovereign immunity issue the sole argument the plaintiff makes in his brief is that the constitutional rights he's claiming in this case that were violated are just sufficiently important that they should trump the eleventh man in all due respect that argument seeks to overturn  the fact that he's claiming a violation of constitutional rights does not abrogate a state's eleventh amendment immunity the only exception here is for prospective  not take that opportunity instead he sought an appeal of the sovereign immunity issue so any any any argument yet seeking to preserve a claim for prospective injunctive relief has both been waived and is awesome and if the court has no no other questions i will i will rest on members thank you you know i feel remiss if i didn't read the words of the late honorable judge derek stated as a practical matter if over the long haul when we get more facts and i have an absolute open mind as to what the facts ultimately will be when we reach the merits of this but bear with this if the facts as they ultimately are determined to be would support the plaintiff then we have effectively prevented mr munder from achieving what he should have been