was there any it was five minutes your honor thank you maybe get your honors i think much of my case is going to revolve around the th amendment and i  know that there's a long history of th amendment law but i think in the light of the recent than just the last session supreme court case of bostik versus clayton county there are some principles laid down for interpretating this sort of procedure and i believe that the in both the case of the th amendment where there is a prohibition of a citizen suing his own state and in the area of qualified immunity all of the principles of boston been violated with the th amendment the the seminal went through that the court actually had no law to make this an exception they had no precedent what they did was to cite the federalist papers cite discussions leading up to the constitution the late eight hundred and eighty s and the way that it was written it was that the citizen of one state cannot sue another state a foreign citizen cannot sue a state of the united states but there was nothing in the th amendment in the clear language of the th amendment that said that a citizen of his own state could not sue is state indeed the certainly is this an argument that the th amendment has been completely misconstrued by the chords and for that reason shouldn't are the section or are you leading to something that will be an argument that the decision in this particular case argument except that with the bostic case giving some clarification on how a court should or apply the plain language versus clayton county and again that is not an th amendment case and i will concede that however the principles that are not stated and bostic as to how one looks at it and this is all in the syllabus as to how one principles whereby they look at statutory construction or construction really of any written law in the united states the interpretation of the th amendment constitutional discussion concerning sovereign immunity none of that made it into the constitution itself and then when there was an attempt to correct this in the and eighty s with the th amendment again there was no prohibition of us of a citizen suing his own state so if we go to three of the principles and bostic a heavy the legislative history has no bearing where there is no ambiguity in the wording there is no ambiguity in the wording of the th amendment the meaning of the language has not changed there is no hidden meaning in the words there is all that's left is basically policy appeals and as justice courses says that is an invitation that no court should ever take up so again in the way that the court looks at that the supreme court looks at statutory construction or the construction of the wording of in this case like i said a the th amendment it's just file it's all of it there argument what is your argument if we if we are a mile down by the supreme court decisions well two things your honor respectfully i think in light of a motion on the pleadings we're not dealing with anything for the real long in the case so i believe in that respect that the court it really mentioned it but it never went anywhere with it instead and this is why i'm i'm kind of stuck on the th amendment if instead it started taking apart the individual defendants and saying well there's no proof that this person did this there's no proof well the fact is it's all part of their all employees of the state of ohio they are all employees of the department of national resources and much of the motivation much of the factual case that can be made stems from the actions of the state now again to get back to your question i believe that just mentioning injunctive relief and not going any further allows this court to really look to revisit relief were it but he they would be enjoined from violating his constitutional rights in the future going one additionally that one of the defendants a defendant miers was dismissed from the case based on qualified immunity and i would make the same arguments case again it was the court's attempt to correct something that didn't need correcting the court in pearson really didn't create qualified immunity what it did was say there was a good faith defense for the for police officers in this case for a talk about police officer course we're going to state employees and it conflated that with judicial immunity which exists in the common law not statutory law and i would argue of number one that the conflation is is way out of bounds it with another one it's not it's actually not in piers that number two the common law does not automatically come into federal law in the example that comes to my mind is the all writs act which basically in court it corporate all of the common law writs into federal law well the common law were automatically incorporated we wouldn't need something like the all writs act so my point is the common law does not automatically come into federal law pearson never created it actually never created  respond to my friend's argument he's asking this court to reverse supreme court precedent which of course this court cannot do with respect to my friend's argument regarding first that case dealt with interpreting a statute we are interpreting the  stalin immunity and the most important issue is the state and the state law claims against the individual defense and all of those are barred by sovereign immunity when state employees are sued and their official capacities the real party in interest is this state therefore sovereign immunity bars all state law claims against state employees and their official capacities and the same is true with respect to the personal capacity state law claims for example one of  seeks to enjoin a state employee and their personal capacity from carrying out their official duties what the plaintiff is really doing is they're seeking to prevent the employee from carrying out their official duties such an injunction would operate against the state it and that's why damages but really when it comes down to it the analysis can be simplified as judge sutton explained there's a straightforward rule and there's a straightforward exception the rule is this one of plaintiffs sues state employees under state law in unrelated to the employee's official duties sovereign immunity does not are that claim and federal courts have jurisdiction so here to state law claims one for malicious prosecution and another for civil conspiracy he brought these claims against the state employee and therefore their bar by sovereign immunity that other sovereign immunity issues are fairly straightforward the state of ohio and the two state agencies the claims against them are barred by fundamental principles of sovereign immunity and that leaves just money damages claim instead the easier way to affirm the district court would be to simply say that coach didn't state a single claim for relief it is plausible on its face now that the claims are st not retaliation due process ninety three conspiracy and two supervisory liability client and given that my friend did not go into any of these issues or argue the merits we think could be sufficient to rest on the briefs and it is your court's judgment so unless the court has any questions i'd be happy to answer the district court's judgment should be if listening to what counsel says and the words that are used concerning the th amendment nowhere is there anything about precedent and nowhere is there anything about statute nowhere is there ready to think about the what the statute or what the  that actually says and to make a distinction between a statute and the amendment i believe that constitutional law is that the constitution and the statutes of the united states are the written laws of the united states so that's a false distinction but the words that are used are well the structure of federal federal law and the fundamental principles well yeah but that's exactly what bostic rejected there there is no argument to something that doesn't exist if the language is clear there is no ambiguity we don't go anywhere else we don't do what honda did going back in and actually i think on bolsters the argument not to extend the th amendment and and also we don't just rest on policy that is absolutely out and i'm willing the language hasn't changed its english so again i would say that many of the claims that were dismissed due to failure state of claim hinge on the context of the state action and i believe this court with bostic underbox tick does have the ability to go back and reexamine both john and pearson i would remind the court that one of the defendants meyer was dismissed on qualified immunity grounds so this this court does have that issue in front of it if there are no other matters finished your honor thank you both but it will be submitted