involves not just damages against those parties but also prospective injunctive relief with regard to claims of incarceration claims that people were incarcerated without access to counsel is up to him probably counsel and so forth  by way of housekeeping i'll say right now that while that part of it they obviously the perspective of we are is not before this court this time on this appeal it is presently being mediated by the magistrate judge and that's a development  the prospect of relief part of the case is being mediated by the district i mean by the magistrate judge and she is holding off on doing anything with the damage or the case until just a matter of background in the issue that is part of  quasar judicial immunity so faced with those rather clear immunities the plaintiffs have tried to argue that there was some policy out there of some unwritten or set of policies that judges were acting under that therefore they're they're entitled to go for their take some discovery figure out what was going on and proceed from there of course you have to have a plausible logical connection between what you and reality before you can even open the doors of discovery use the language of your bald twamley and here they are just basically said that all these cases are decided alike there must be some underlying unwritten policy that causes them to like either one of those is subject to immediate appeal in most cases the exception being if there's a substantial question of fact surrounding the application of the immunity to the case and  no discovery taken so no there hasn't been no and in fact if if we if we done this by motion to dismiss instead of summary judgment there also would be no discovery taken and that we would still be properly before the court if there's no legitimate but ye set court hours so that from nine o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock in the morning that's an administrative decision i would say i'm trying i'm trying to question of the judges doing what they believed was the right thing to do and if you have identical results madonna cases that does not logically or plausibly create an inference that there that there was a policy an alliance to use an example if this you can find one hundred cases in the west reporters probably five hundred cases from this court never really for that says that if you don't raise something before the district or the normal as a general rule we will consider on appeal other cases many many cases from this court does that create the logical that some chief jaws somewhere in the past or in the present issued an unwritten policy oh to that effect and that therefore every judge that ever reach that conclusion in a case can be sued and discovery can be had to see  realm of judicial immunity and put it into the realm of legislative immunity or can of our city still be an exercise judicial o function such as it is not subject to judicial me which which is which is the only cases that i'm aware of on rules of court rules of practice and procedure the case really about judicial immunity i would say yes and that's that was my first point that these people really what we're talking about is judicial immunity and i'm who i am i'm i'm still trying to find out from you nancy the answer to the question of if there is a policy or didn't have had absolutely nothing to say about the house then i would say you could there could be said that it is part of the judicial function because it simply describes how the hell georgia sometimes what legislature out of it for a moment is there any possibility that these actions were could have been administrative in nature either because immaterial wires of material cost for this court to determine whether the challenge to actions are administrative or traditional the court needs to apply the stun factors that includes looking at the nature of the action as well as the expectation of the parties that first prong the nature of the action requires looking at how the defendants in this case exercise their administrative authority and the critical piece here your honour's is that the chief justice of the county court system in lexington county depends on the facts and the context here your honor is that where the defendant reinhart exercised administrative responsibility for establishing fine collection procedures for this county under the january twenty seven thousand supreme court order appointing him the chief this is paragraph fifteen there's a clear grant of administrative responsibility or a set of policy making and procedures the allegations are that he exercised that authority to create a policy  failure to pay without hearings that is the policy that's challenge here is not a sentence and also that is not a sentencing policy it's a policy that is exercised for collecting fines in the county in lexington county under his administrative responsibility and there are constituent procedures and protocols implemented by court clerks who report to the presiding judge the chief magistrate rinehart as well as to the jail  administrators who is the sheriff that how the policy is carried out what would what what would you anticipate discovery disclosing or develop and there are four pieces of evidence we're looking at to get at these material factual disputes your honor the first is what did chief rinehart do you in carrying out that responsibility under paragraph of teen and what did he not do number two what did the sheriff do to instruct jail staff on when to identify people to bring them to work the third is were the defendants aware of the rampant practice of keeping people in jail for failure to pay without any hearings at all and for  defendants can do as in ministry even though there are these clear exercises of delegated authority that could have caused a plaintiff harm but if they were aware of this rampant abuse and they have the ability to correct it under the deliberate indifference theory they can be held liable for constitutional violations and that's the allegation here that first there could be in unwritten policy that is implemented judicial involved both in the drafting and in the execution so to answer each of your questions in turn your honor first here there is not alleged to be a sentencing policy because the sentences aren't challenge each individual was sentenced to pay fine or jail that's the sentence to answer your second question and they don't challenge that sentence because what they're challenging is what happens to them when they're brought to jail and that is when that fine or jail sentence turns into jail without a hearing for people who can't pay that is carried out by the staff at the jail and court clerks that is where that it ministry of conversion of a judge they're turning a fine or jail fenton's which is what they know the court has imposed into jail only and there's no judicial order saying don't give these people hearing there's no digital order saying he's people deserve only jail and jail is in the an action and the only thing we have before us is a question of damages against the judge and the argument is made that we need discovery as to the existence of allison and sort of the question arises there are still a great many questions that really be before the district regardless of what we did with the appeal and i'm not sure why you couldn't get all the information you need through discovery in the form of a declaratory judgment action why is it necessary to bring a damages action against the judges because you've got your prayer for declar where it is damages or nothing  an inference that seven hundred people were subjected to imprisonment with or failure to pay without any hearings and the defendants here have the authority to correct that and they didn't do it and  exactly there have been no hearings on ability to pay there is there is no dispute right now in the factual record that any of the plaintiffs got inability to pay to termination one of them did before or after being arrested and to be clear the heart of this case question here the nature of the conduct is policy making it is it ministry to policy making pursuant to this explicit grant of authority to the chief magistrate in this county to set fine collection procedures the defendants have not grappled with hundreds of court jail records showing that people are imprisoned for appeal or to pay without hearings and that gives rise to material questions of fact about whether there is indeed an unwritten policy here and that unwritten policy is one w ould i'm very uncomfortable assuming on the basis of numbers that that that creates presumptions about policies it just it's it's it's  far i think to decide that because the number of moost criminal cases disposed of back to lee i'm not sure what that tells you about as well as the clear grant of administrative responsibility to chief magistrate rinehart as well as to sheriff coon as the administrator of the jail there are three things we would like the court to look at in these are based on the supreme court factors laid out in stump first the nature of the action here the allegation is that that action is policy making pursuant to administrative responsibilities by the chief who's in charge of establishing fine question procedures and by the sheriff who's in charge of supervising his staff at the jail and getting people to court and the allegation is the allegation is they have a policy of not getting people to court second what are the expectations of the parties when that action is engaged and there are no parties there are no parties before the sheriff or before the chief when those sorts of orders are being promulgated either through a written policy or through an unwritten policy that is carried out by instructions to subordinate staff that there is no unwritten policy because if you if you come back and say well we know that that done more often than not you know that now it would refute the policy for them to show that in fact in fact the plaintiffs incarcerations were the result of individual lives decisions in their cases for example that individual magistrates decided mr brown didn't deserve a hearing and here's why or mr wright didn't deserve a hearing but that's not what's happened and that's not what they've argued or what the front here where there is a clear administrator to clear administrators with administrative responsibility that are alleged to act in this area of unfair to have you come up with things to fit your claim that that's what we're all about is trying to poke around here is if you if they come out in discovery that in fact because of some thing that appeared in a given case that the judges or a judge determined that this should be going forward yes and here we go back to stump the two stump factors the nature of the act is critical and the nature of the act here is not about individual eyes determination that this person deserves the sentence this person deserves jail it's about an order setting a policy for the system a policy of incur imprisonment for failure to pay without a hearing and there is no expectation that gets to your honorable judge wilkinsons question there's no expectation that there are parties appearing possibilities one is that there are literally is a piece of paper that says to the court after court clerk to jail staff don't bring people back to court when they're in jail because they cannot pay a fine the second thing it could be it may not be that clear but it could be presumed from other instructions and protocols there could be a protocol that says to jail staff in court clerks do not bring bring people back when they're in on a bench warrant that says they owe money don't bring them to court and we know this because under the supreme court order there's no labrat system of procedures and protocols to bring people from the jail to the bond court next door so they get their bond court hearings and reinhart defendant rinehart is in charge of that so he and the sheriff have worked together to create all of those procedures if weak at the discovery we want which is we've asked for written instructions and guidance on when to get people back on court hearings when to take people from the jail to court if we actually get that those protocols those although that should happen purely on the question of whether something is a policy or or is it not i'm concerned that we're on a slippery slope here and i concept of asking are there procedures within our own written that determine whether or not a person on here that i understand what i'm getting what i've become more uncomfortable with is yes your honor my time is up but if i may the first answer is that the limiting principle here is that there is a clear grant of administrative authority over a certain area of policy making and that is fine collection that is the critical hook is not in a more finesse allusion to administrative responsibility or duties it is grounded in delegated authorities to the defendants in this action and the request is not to delve into what every single individual judge was doing in this  system but what as the policy maker defendant reinhard did in carrying out that responsibility and guiding court clerks and jail staff and when you bring people in court and when not to and the result is a policy of imprisonment for failure to pay without hearing the second point i want to make is that there's that limited discovery is necessary in response to the factual submissions of the plaintiff the defendants did not provide anything articulating what the chief's responsibilities are or aren't she needed more information and that is a modest ruling that is well supported by the sports ending to mari as well as many earlier precedents and finally to respond to defendants if i may that there is no indication on this record that there is anything approaching formal rulemaking or even an exercise of delegated legislative authority the chief here has responsibilities stemming from the supreme court order of twenty seventeen and there's no indication that in carrying out those responsibilities he is promulgating rules for exercising appropriations authority delegated by a legislature so if there are no other questions i'd like to rest thank you very much and by going after sheriffs right and marshals but the same by the same token you could go after someone that issue but the pi pathetique court is that the judge makes that in my for it's you know there i don't make it a more extreme example so women get ten days for crime then a man would only get five and then there's an order issue right and maybe maybe that's where we go but i i again say that the policy didn't put the people in jail judicial or put people in jail and we have the closest case that is that the comes closest to the us was decided by a web server just six weeks ago i went around the twenty eight jail or just filed yesterday and it it goes into some detail about the four things that you need to have a judicial determination for which immunity exists that is that it was a normal jewel case to function it happened in a courtroom because there was pending before the court and all it was the defendant appeared before a court that's judicial if it's a it was a blue are brown eyed thing and all those things happen again i hate to sound extreme but there are other school i understand you're ok there was one thing to our i had this deer in the headlights expression and i'd like to try to clarify this about the brief because you said that i had said financial matters we do when we determine immunity we have to give them the benefit of every the whole purpose of i mean sometimes it's sometimes it's necessary but you're concerned about the fact that the supreme court has said in case after case that immunity becomes worthless if you have to always go to trial  you absolutely to which no one would disagree i think you