torres i would like to if possible reserve two minutes for the rebuttal this case is on appeal from the dismissal of claims against king county and its individual officers the district made a persuasive showing in your brief that he was not diligent in the slightest and let a lot of opportunity go by so are you going to you are you asking us to remember back to the district court to allow the filing of the amended complaint based on what the point of knows at this time without further discovery you are at a minimum we think that that's what would be necessary how can you meet ruhleben standards to pleaded a case against any of raq to a number six we do believe however that in light of the council he's appointed counsels that conduct any discovery it would be appropriate to grant mr murray interest some limited time in which to find out more of responses indicated that there was additional evidence to be found through the discovery process in that case suggested to the district court that i believe ordered rather that discovery should continue now  are we telling the district judge that nine months was not enough that they that there was reversible error because they received five months your predecessor counsel received five months and then it was four months later that went by and still nothing happened as far as filing a complaint or what we read is that reversible error when they or it decides enough is enough and i'm in a sanction and go ahead and i think the reversible error here was to dismiss against a john dauth with prejudice but i do think like the seven circuits cases in dunphy and donald where the seventh or fifth found the district court failed to adequately supervise appoint counsel women which of cour appointed still did nothing didn't communicate with his client didn't conducted no discovery when they were corriveau claims and it was him and the and the client was left in a position far worse than he would have been a journalist supervising the you have that we could reverse this district court on this record where there was nine months that passed waiting nothing happened and accordingly judge who wrote the reversible errors was to dismiss with prejudice when it was clear from the record below that john doe defendant had been identified with sufficient specificity such that an amended complaint would be w involved in rocketry number six that it would be go beyond witnesses to specific individuals were involved in the conduct not certainly the defendants could file whatever summary judgment motion or motion to dismiss arguing that these individuals were not sufficient evidence in the record given the repeated failures to listen to mr marine tours his claims for medical care for over a three year period from ninety nine to two thousand and two to conclude that the county had a custom or a inmates reasonable medical care when it's requested and certainly the evidence was sufficient for reasonable jury to conclude that there was such a custom and that is also reversible error we think and what's the evidence of a custom policy or custom had developed to deny medical care if if possible i would like to reserve the remainder of my time there's no ineffective assistance of counsel claim in this circuit i'm going to jump to the third point thirst because i think that's that's probably the most answered dress just the normal ordinary course the notion no right to effect assistance of counsel in the trial court and in that case the council was pro bono civil rights case complained about the representation he got in this trial and this court clearly held that that because i think the magistrate judge read more into the april fourteenth order than is there because april fourteenth order does not say he had to have filed an amended complaint by then and he said that he had to complete discovery and yet the magistrate judge's ruling suggests that the magistrate judge was reading his failure as failure to not only complete discovery within file the amended complaint and seems to me that in the ordinary course with anyone that a judge mind so they particularly now in this case they know that they're appointed counsel at least ask you know are you going to amend the complaint  haven't done any more discovery you haven't named specific people but there are people in the records are you naming them as defendants who would have been fairly simple to do that with i'm sorry i didn't understand your question earlier  prejudice you first give them some type of warning the type of warning as a dismissal without prejudice letting you file why whether this person is pro se or belongs to the largest firm in seattle of the church fisher was referring to it does say early on if you want to name individual defendants you must name them you must say what they did and you must show how they acted under color of law that's the most basic king county john who are still labeled as currently under the flight employees in his or her official capacities and amend this complaint accordingly he was even directed to do so by this court on but you moved to dismiss for failure to specify and you were attacking the november complaint as failing to comply with the june tenth order that that was not the motion the motion was the plaintiff does not have any evidence well a few proof points i think regardless of whether or not the appellant asked for leave to amend leave to amend should be granted and dismissal should only be without prejudice unless it's circumstances we have here a consistent pattern of being denied care for serious medical claims i e there are meritorious claims and there is no other evidence beyond a point of counsel who failed to do its job that th yes order this mysterious miss and complaint you see at the top of the title order dismissing section one thirty three in federal procedure there doesn't get your final judgment the action has to be dismissed so i'm just wondering seeking all of the correspondence up from about the case because he hadn't heard anything from his lawyer and at that point the district court dismissed that motion as removed because of that because the case that and i can point you to that order but that would be