quickly i think there are a couple of central points here one of them is whether on this record one could draw the inference that rivers is threat extends beyond the period of  time when everybody's in the shower because in his nd opinion the district you seem to understand it that way and the other point that i'm at least very interested in having you address is the the sergeant paul would argues that even taking the facts that way this is a vague area and he should not be deprived of qualified immunity i the shower by that time so it's not like she's saying a bad thing happened but now it's over with that's correct your honor she she is and also a not conversation she repeatedly asked polic to report her live in the same housing unit and are allowed to shower together in the fact they've only happened only two days after the threat so the threat was actually imminent in reality so there's nothing to indicate that no reasonable juror could find that the threat was ongoing here to address your point about qualified immunity in the decade when the supreme court decided farmer being granted it had become clearly sand in response to a read that he strongly suspected it and then claimed people did not know about it oh holy never add another words why do you have to mean i think this is critical we have to take the facts with the sexually oriented so he could get a separate though is that something you have anything about because i'm going to ask the other side also yes your honor i terrified after this shower the shower is over and her demeanor at that time added to the fact that she also tries to get another officer to convey to the prison people in general to powlett that this threat has been made seem to me to be evidence that a reasonable jury could regard as fear of an ongoing threat not something to zero in i had a dangerous shower but now it's over with and thank goodness why don't you tell rivers to behave himself that that's not to the that's not the inference that i draw from these facts or at least i think a jury could draw the inference of an ongoing thing which actually even in his screening order looks like the district court initially sought to the chief judge of what i want to point out that we have to consider all the context and that includes everything that was said because that's all savage says that she told the sergeant pollock everything so here's what was what happened there rivers told bob that it's to stay out of the showers between inmates henderson and washington take those facts as well but there are more facts she reports the threat to pollack it's not like she thinks rivers has as just sort of a momentary burst she speaks  she appears agitated and fearful she follows up with officer winters asks him to remind pollock to document these concerns palak doesn't do anything and she's she has said nothing to indicate that it was just this period of time they were in the showers that's the kind of thing i would assume is a defense at the merits trial not something that is so clearly one directional the summary judgment is proper well there is something with that she did not say she didn't say i'm afraid she didn't thank help me she didn't say get rid of the way for me she didn't say you need to punish rivers for this threat she didn't she's frightened and it's and she does so after the shower she doesn't go in the middle of the shower and say i can't complete my shower because rivers is going to attack me if i go to the wrong  stall i think that's a good point to observe is that if she had gone to pollack during the showers this might be a different case but instead the showers continued unabated and nothing happened and al i'm afraid she's still afraid after the showers overs so why does that compel the inference that the threat is limited to the shower setting with because we believe that the proper the only interpretation of exactly what pollock was told is that that's right and in the showers it was an offhand emotional reaction by rivers it was not a vendetta that was being a fabolous going forward into account her further actions politics been alerted to the fact that a particular inmate rivers is going to do a particular thing beat the f out of her and it's very specific and he doesn't so much as ask a question of rivers like why are you being annoying anything our position is that under those circumstances given what had happened and when it happened  help me get rivers away from me or you need to punish rivers for this threat both things just were not said and so all policy would believe and all he knew was that there was a tiff in the showers it ended there there was time to raid of the showers again the record is not clear how how long this series of events occurred like how many minutes or so even nd all he knows is that these statements are made and given the context of where they were made and that nothing happened the only reason the conclusion you can draw is that there is no existing threat which is what farmer versus running the wire was there any other encounter between anyone else we don't know anything and certainly policy doesn't know anything that's not in the record to say that she knows that river is just a menace or something like that and that river is out there targeting   i want to address qualified immunity briefly and i think that the way i would like to focus on that is by pointing to the case that is quoted at pages twenty two and twenty three of the opening grief from the instance you know if you want summary judgment you'd win on qualified immunity the same time and vice versa if there is a genuine issue of fact about the imminence of this threat is everybody agrees it's particular we know it's rivers we know it's  with we know the rest of it and if you accept the facts as well which says they are then you're very comfortably in in the zone of things where the supreme court since farmer versus brennan and on has said violate somebodies constitutional rights a particularized threat of violence is not one of those degassing that you have to worry about that do come up in cases where a reasonable officer might not realize what's going to happen to judge what the question that the court would have to ask itself is what every reasonable officer in pollock's position had thought he was violating the th amendment by taking the actions that he did i take offense when asked to say the light of an imminent threat by a particular person against a particular inmate this isn't one of those you know the gangster disciples you know control this branch of the prison they're from afraid of them this is a very particular arised scenario which could include that the reason she's reporting this apology is that it's not over it's an imminent threat right and we're our position is that assuming all the facts that she says are true it's not an imminent threat that's what we're saying as a matter of law if that's true and we look at all the facts and construe them in her favor and still we would have to look at whether any reasonable officer in politics position could have  spelled out i think rivers is going to attack me soon an officer would need to look into that situation right i think that could be a different case right ok well that's what i'm trying to get to do is the reasonable inference part of the way we look at the facts summary judgment she there are facts in this record that would yield the reasonable inference itchy indicated that to him maybe not quite in so many words it's pretty close to dead so if we're in a situation where he knows she's trying to complain that there's an imminent threat to her personal safety then he needs to follow up somehow he should know that any officer should know that our position is that any officer here and a reasonable one would have done nothing there was nothing further to fall off on because of the threat that was made in the one time deal he may have had other encounters maybe that they should been aware of is there anything bout that in the record no not prior to this incident now certainly there's another if you read the district court that there isn't there's another half of this case that is not on appeal and it addresses facts that come later in time beyond the relevant time period for our case with regard to rivers but judge mannion the key is to look at what  seventeen about rivers and there's nothing in the record to suggest that pollock having a reason to believe that rivers was last to ball savage i'll judge man you want to answer your question about the issue of rivers transgender identity so i don't see the appellant here to be saying that rivers is a fake or because they feel in their reply brief extract in a footnote say that that is not what they're saying we have to take at face value here that the prison has to respect what rivers is identifying as and rivers of identifying is transgender that is why resist showering with a group of inmates so i don't think it's it's a good path to go down or even you know what the hell and best thing to do to be questioning rivers transgender identity that also leads me to my nd point which is going to be that the fact that transgender identity and so the idea that transgender identity might affect the outcome here is really a red herring and we believe that that is it really doesn't change the analysis in this particular case it would be reasons the act that you reverse the district courts grant summary judgment i think it's all right thank you very much to both counsel this court will take the case