compliant with the allegations that we put in the compliant was number one he was terminated for failing to follow the rules and to sexual impropriety with minors some twenty years before he got terminated as a police officer that they failed to even do a background check on him as required by the laws when they allowed him to be i mean i guess to the extent you can why don't you talk about specific main claim is the city against the city and then against individuals as what you term supervisory and so not carrying out so so you have to prove a policy or practice right right and then the supervisors were part of not carrying out or carrying out that policy or practice right ok what what is the policy of curious we've said in the past that just performing their job in their supervisor thing they have to somehow knowingly acquiesce in and the underlying conduct with respect to the municipal liability clime what we have we have done in paragraph on every particular level with attack it on number one a failure to try and there are state minimum requirements that are required even for reserve to even go on the job which is go through been trained correctly he wouldn't molested thanks that's is that i mean it's is it municipal policy to have this training and to do the background checks and so on the state statute the state statute and that's where i'm going but i mean you're saying there are inadequacies in hiring and training but this person but again you have to show that they had a policy of inadequate hiring a policy not just that they failed to do it with respect to this friar guy pattern do you have what patterns you lead what you know and we don't have a path and wasn't i mean you lose on these claims but i mean at this particular point what we have this we do have a pattern of the city supervise for me that's the most troubling part and that's that for me your best argument and thought i'll just tell you i thought ok well that's that's fine but just with respect to the failure to supervise what we have done in that and and lieutenant stanback lieutenant stand back was the head officer him in charge of in charge of reserves when chief stamp lieutenant standby became the chief we told them the same things not only d this is the st time he found out he tells them in the complaint alleges that on numerous occasions he kept telling tenet stand back when tenet stand back then became the chief he told her when she was the chief w lieutenant stanback left being the chief and chief tenet became the chief those reserve told that tell that person as well while this was going on also one of the parents grandparents of one of the children that was molested talked to a lieutenant lieutenant coleman and asked him to investigate this officer to dissuade her fears that he was a pedophile and at another time there were there were actions that officer pryor was doing while he was with the city of billington or whatever that the supervisor you're alleging world where they did it was not just the past action with another police department that they were aware of you're saying they were aware of things he was doing as an employee at the time and there was inaction on those yes well it's a lesson paragraph twenty three dollars that this person made the complaint about both blanks about the previous also during this period of time so we have allegations that he sexually abused people in the past we have allegations that he acted and proper towards children in the present and then we have somebody from the done a public records request we can't find any report but but we have i mean we have no discovery in this case around we've done public records case name the court the court and i know i'm out of time the coroner noted that there were problems with the record keeping paragraph twenty three dollars when you say the reserve officer advised stanback fryers prior misconduct on numerous occasions what prior misconduct are you referring this is one he was he basically actually right the prisoner in the seventy's i was terminated really i mean we don't have it in the public we haven't had because we don't you don't spell out what this prior misconduct was in the complaint do you know because we interceptions that day and he was caught to throw the ball and some drug jumped down on the field took the ball out of his hand it ran about twenty yards gang tackle the next morning i'm shaving to get ready to come here and he pled not guilty i'm just laugh honor mr clarke was candid with the court he did not spell out the prior misconduct and the allegations in the complaint don't need to be accepted as true underage ball because there is no factual foundation form they rely upon entirely to show be county sheriff's office records and all that record says is pryor was not conducting his sheriff's department business properly taking off and transporting prisoners and stopping at a female's residence under no scenario does that plausibly allege facts that would put millington on notice that ricky fryer is the type of person who would likely nothing that they can point to that would actually support that i am and if they don't say that was misconduct with the prisoners transporting prisoners and stopping at a female's residen no no i'm saying that you don't have to consider his allegations they contradict the document that he's relying upon this court has ruled on that occasion on that issue several times oh he's referring to a document and we can consider the document conduct nothing to suggest it was of a sexual nature we talk about the police report thing or we talk about the y m c a thing if this were both at the y m c a judge dealt with that perfectly that wasn't a crime he took some allege that is if this reserve officer came forth and said that he was aware of this and he didn't report it he's committed a crime himself they were careful not to make that allegation  county so that's the document you're talking about that's right and based on his own personal observations of defendant priors improper conduct towards young female children while on duty you're saying that it's just that's today it's romney right you have a case that says that level of generality so to speak is insufficient because this isn't just sort of i don't know i mean it's not obvious that  isn't specific enough i mean so is there a case that deals with yes board of commissioners versus brown deals with directly this court i'm sorry that case from th over says father ryan high school case six hundred and seventy eight federal appendix two hundred and eighty one two thousand and seventeen case it dealt with allegations against the school board and this court sexual abuse there's no allegation in this case in the complaint of any report of sexual abuse being given to any of the individual defendants or to the city none whatsoever and the dome case this court decided back in two thousand nine hundred and ninety six let me ask you this there's very each complaint has very specific allegations about those particular plaintiffs right ok but you're saying there is no allegation in any of those complaints that any of those specific incidents were reported exactly to the supervisors or whoever for them to do anything about exactly the fryar did to the children yes they're specifically pled but allegations that he had done this while these are that there were complaints made rather while he was employed by millington to millington no  patter a sexual abuse by school employees there's no allegation that anybody other than fire did this the only allegation is to fire is that he did it off duty while babysitting these children that's fundamentally fatal to their case the training claim fails because training deals with issues that the police department get involved with training duties are supposed to do the screening cases it fails because you have to show that they were likely to have realized that he was a pedophile based upon a review of his record there's nothing in the record that would suggest that anywhere nothing that would put them on notice that it was a plainly obvious consequence of the hiring decision that he would sexually assault minors that's where judge lippman absolutely knocked it out of park in this case she got it right like a really hard and maybe it is a very hard claim to make if you  have a discovery i mean i'm not saying you should just get discovery for the heck of it but it without getting any information about the internal hiring decision you have to have something to go on and i don't know what it would be i guess a public records the document that's critical to their case does not support the allegations if they make therefore those allegations are not entitled to a presumption of truth in that office but that only pertains to the allegation that he was terminated that shelby county's sheriff's department terminated terminated him for sexual monsieur's yes you know if we take that out we still have the reserve officer background investigation would have done nothing other than spine the document they were talking about that would not have put them on notice of anything but the call itself i mean there's a lot of smoke on these allegations that's starting to come in this and take some sort of you know try to take some sort of action that's certainly their theory here on but the case law doesn't back them up and the board of commissioners versus brown i think address obvious consequence of the hiring decision and that's a strong burden the supreme court's imposed a stronger i don't think we're focused on the hiring issue at the moment ok focused on the failure to supervise so it's after he's he's there at which point you have all the i mean like the maximum information the stuff that ok i mean not that he had misconduct with young girls that wasn't a reason but he did you know stop a van and stop at some woman's house ok so that's unusual and he got fired for it and then we've got this reserve officer very persistently these are all the allegations very persistently warning about this guy saying that he's seen this guy act improper towards young girls while on duty and then the y m c a person shows up in the step mom calls and i think tennant and stand back are can be charged with all that knowledge well actually my time just ok well i mean whomever can be charged with that knowledge you know it's probably six seasons getting to the point where an officer should have known that they were these chiefs should have done something rather than at least on these allegations sort of continue to sleep through this impose municipal liability in on the supervisors in action alone isn't enough i'm not i don't think i'm talking about municipal liability i think i'm talking about the liability of these two officers but there's no allegation of active conduct on their part that's where the complaint fails here they simply didn't act that and it's not enough to impose liability on them why i mean let's hypothetically if  had ten reports that ten different parents call and say i saw molest my child you know and stand better these two officers i don't know they just don't react they don't do anything so another ten get molested surely they're liable you know the brief show that several of those individual defendants weren't even employed at the time he met the children so there couldn't be any claims against him that's why the judge dismissed  others were employed when he was hired i'm talking about stand back and tenet ok who provides the reclaim based on these various reports that came in again and it's simply an action on their part that's not enough that's not active conduct because again let's say like i said ten parents call and say they molested our our girl and you need to fire this guy and then they don't do gave you saying inaction categorically can't give rise to live will be the hypo i gave you ten reports of rape and they do nothing but continue to let him have a badge that there's no you're saying there would be no all what your past again you heard all this talk about qualified immunity that you need to actually similar case what your your most factually similar case or the potential liability stand back in having a case that would have told them based on the reports that i just described i'm not including prior misconduct young girls for the moment but on the other reporters what's the case that thought i mean but this is the same conversation we had in the last case right asking about the standard let's say the standard is clear but stand the application of standard tickler fact sometimes it's not so clear  tenet should have known they needed to act on these reports if you don't have a case you probably lose so i'm i'm seeking your your best argument as to what you know what those cases are those cases might be do asked about in action there is a municipal law ability and action theri and mr says that we cannot test it doesn't it correct and that's where it says there is no rational individual could believe that basically that goes through the whole standard of have them in a supervisor is liable that it cannot be just based on the standard of general supervision they have to participate then or knowingly acquiesce into the conduct in that particular case i was bringing up the supervisory liability of the chief of police of the city of memphis and he obviously he wasn't there can i see this can there be supervisory liability for individuals without municipal liability or they or their wible in carrying out the policy itself right is that what the theory at times i or and sometimes they're acting and issues i had a better answer it just keeps getting more confusing but let me just if i can in a nutshell just basically say here i have done everything i possibly can in this particular case to try to get information so i can dra i have written public records requests to every where i could and i've got these things up the court even though so that the documents i got from millington are or are not even consistent with each other i found the reserve officer who said that context around that original report all right so let me it's interesting point so you're alleging in your complaint as to determination by shelby county that the reserve office something different but that you're not relying you would you don't do you would go i mean in the complaint i have both that document to the extent that any department that hires one another department would want to look at it terminations rights i mean why would you have us for purposes of our analysis take the reserve officers characterization of the reason for terminations face value rather than track what th department business properly in taking reports in and in transporting prisoners and stopping at a female's residence that could main stopped by mistake d i mean all we have is that that's the whole legend the reserve officer told the milligan folks that that that the document didn't say everything that happened brett there is more it's actually there isn't so that's very helpful what complaint what number i don't know what misconduct with you know girls and then paragraph twenty two that's where he said but what would judge bush saying talking about is you know is there an allegation that says don't believe document believe me now that that's just what i got i mean they did it so that they would isn't didn't say to somebody don't believe that document nubs telling you