the on going into the noice county jail hour after having adjusted a huge amount of illegal our products and that was eventually at least the manner of her death and the during the time period that she was in the unfortunately did not say feed in that in and did not take stock in it and did not include it in regards to anything other than to some sort of a cursory explanation of why it did not apply i have yet to my mono liability finding but if you do a search of comcast not once does the term oh no even arise the other case that they also provided with the any case in that case it was a taser case and the only the standards for followed by the district or really don't have much of an application and the buy case which is clearly a political gives a roadmap to at least  discovery conducted in regards to this case there may have been some preliminary disclosures provided in regards to media reports and i think if america did the district cou motel liability although i must concede we did have some additional disclosure that were probably provided but those only provided information in regards to the specifics of the personnel that were involved in the case and hence the nd amended point that i job with the limited information that i had in creating what i believe is a extremely plausible case or failure to provide policies that have having a policy  medical treatment in the noises county jail it's just not and so if there is not any other questions i mean that they have gone through everything i just looking at the by identical case and therefore we're asking the senate back to do support so that my client on behalf of her deceased daughter and about her granddaughter will have an opportunity to do discovery in regard to knows on summary judgment maybe we fail but maybe we don't but at right now we have a constitutional sufficient please appreciate it thank you mr gale you've saved time for a bow street miller cause of action when you plead a case and that you should have discovered the supreme court already rejected those arguments in the eight ball case the supreme court said that rule  a doesn't open the doors to discovery for somebody armed with nothing more than conclusions you may not have discovery as to what the rove impacts are when you filed a complaint which you're expected to state a factual theory conflict leatherman simply requires that a court analyzed biggest liability claims under the same pleading standard applied to both to civil claims generally indeed to this court there is no basis for a lower standard for section one thousand and eighty three cases whether they involved in this liability claims or otherwise in fact the paul was a civil rights case alleging that government policies cause a depreciation of players constitutional rights and that is a similar to what we have here oh the policies of a polar lead in the context of supervisory liability and we have the very similar context of on pages eight matting of the play of spray for regarding review of leave to amend but there is no argument that follows that applies that standard review to the circumstances of allegations contained in the thirty minute compla standards but neither the briefing with white tells us what those standards are and then an allegation that individual county employees were inadequate retrained and elect the policies and direction necessary for their jobs basically if they are appeal the plaintiff own rise only on the events surrounding tammy bond and her parcel ration to sell a policy in your alliance on the other advance was abandoned a due to inadequate br decisions of the governments lawmakers the acts of policymaking officials or practices so persistent and widespread as a privately have the force of law but in the compliance in this case we don't have any allegations regarding the county's lawmakers and we don't have any allegations regarding the acts of a policymaking official that leaves us with a rd option which is practices so persistent in widespread as to in opinions like the pena vs rio grande city opinion and the ratliff vs aransas county opinion from earlier this year explained it to plausibly plead a practiced so persistent and widespread as a practically have the force of law specific backs about any other event to establish a policy as opposed to isolated erik's we also have to keep in mind that a policy alone does not make a case of an isp allowed bill as cases like pena and peterson vs city of fort worth the two thousand and nine decision of the court say you have to have that in official policy promulgated by the municipal policymaker that was the move in force behind   lation of the constitutional right peterson further explains that a customer policy is official only when it results from the decision or acquiescence of the minister policymaker in the complaints here you don't have anything alleged to attribute the policy to a policy maker whether the policy maker be the sheriff or the county's commissioners a policy can a policy maker cannot adopt or acquiesce in a policy or practice if the policy maker doesn't know about that practice the court recognizes that problem in pain with the less policy of condoning excessive force in that case of the co explained that the complaint invites no more than speculation that any particular policy maker be of the chief of police of the city commission knew about the alleged custom we've got that same problem here with the allegations in the complaint conic in other cases are you basically are imposing liability on me just how the for employees acts without considering the knowledge and conduct of that policy maker in between whose conduct  conclusory allegations not suffice for causation instead you need specific allegations supporting a possible causation inference but what do we have in the complaints here what standard for violating the complaints don't tell us how they were violated is also a problem what would have been different regarding staffing training or care for have been compliance and how would this provide a basis for concluding that tammy bond would have had a different outcome if changes were made where the same just would be to put the jail into compliance the complaints in this case don't answer that question dept of brings us to the asserts that well by involved allegations of improper care over a over six or seven days period and i can rely on that case even though this case involves only what happened one night to correctly apply by one has to understand the scope of that decision and the limits on the ability to use that decision based on what the decision actually decide  by it cannot be read to dispose of the need to plead facts assume the policymakers adoption of or acquiescence in a practice nor can be read to dispose of the causation require as i mentioned before comcast requires pleading facts sufficient to support every essential element of the klein and under monet helen connick and other supreme court decisions the policy makers can say interact we essence in the practice and address attribution of the policy to the policy makers nor by a address causation my instant was focused on the sufficiency of the description of the policy that is a description of the allegedly widespread a policy of inadequate care cannot ordinarily be inferred from a single constitutional violation and the facts in that case c o y c e were insufficient to cross the threshold regardless the district court properly distinguished by in its opinions on the motion to dismiss and the denial of leave to a man of the disappoint recognize that experience is over six or seven days or more likely to indicate a systemic problem then one night's events over a longer time period different staff members with different supervisors are more likely to come into contact with  prisoner and similar reactions by those different individuals may be a better indicator of a systemic problem indeed and by there was consistent and more obvious problems over that longer period than what you have in our case the plaintiff presented to the jail with excruciating back pain on the on the day of booking arrest of three days later the plaintiff and by its soil himself the next day the  plaintiff at last ability to control bodily functions and was having muscle spasms and by the six day the a plaintiff and by it was parallel it's in our case by contrast tammy bomb presented to the jail amphetamines wow at times tammy bond was uncooperative was lying on the floor needed help to get about the sale and get to the bathroom the complaint also alleges that later that evening she was  pacing herself so even if she had been non ambulatory at one point the complaint alleges that later she was ambulatory jamey bond died in the early morning hours of march th the complaint does not provide  timeline regarding you know whether this set of events occurred over the course of three or four hours as if it were a nighttime arrest on march th or a longer time period  you know given that there's no basis to put that this was more than a few hours from what's alleged in the complaints yet how do you infer a persistent and widespread practice based on the events of one evening involving at most a handful of jail staffers let alone a persistent widespread practice that's attributable to the policymaker through knowledge and acquiesce it's also how do you infer a caus the cases that require proof of a persistent widespread practice are the ones that govern this appeal thank you mr miller mr gale same time for bow thank  you just real quick i guess as we know that will probably answer mr miller's question but if we had to in a pleading concerning or no liability answer any and every possible question that could come up with what i consider a summary judgment motion then the answer is you will always fail there is not going to be a complaint that has ever ever want to be filed in regards to a civil rights case a loss that entity has been sued by that there is a shorter period of time but there are still the same knowledge and factors while i don't think necessarily underlying constitutional claim is that issue because the underlying said that there was enough there or liability in regards to  not true there is a multitude of examples in there in regards to the knowledge that they didn't have moving up from that from cell to cell mukhtar isolation cells do a search for drugs because they are she was acting disoriented and was having troubles you know there is a multitude of examples in regards to that so what they say in regards to that is all but even if it were true i think it's irrelevant because at this point we're talking about a bleeding issues in regards to the county alo the question is not how can a quarter in far everything from a complaint in regards to all knowledge regarding the all the major in regard to what they did or did not know in regard to what they did or did not do obama's case is it possible that a death of this nature which is obviously and could have been beneficial is a plausible that there is a concern with noises county given its history given all of the examples that were obeidi in the complaint as well as some sort of a back drop in regards to us that they do have a bad or at the very least i'm inviting you know being seriously and indifferent to serious medical needs of those that are  with overdoses some are suicides some are other medical conditions that resulted in death you know i mean we didn't go to discoveries i don't know exactly the number of persons that have overdosed in the jail  versus noises county case but there was some a little back but you know i don't think it's without question much like and our other cases that there is going to be persons that come into the jail that are under the influence of narcotics but it's not a question so the question is you do need to have training in regards to that so in regards to the training issue there would be an issue about whether other training for people that no one full well they come into their they need to be checked or