our appeal from denial of qualified immunity is a summary judgment mission in the district court and i qualified immunity to these two officers and i want to start by giving a brief timeline because that's going to make it clear that these officers really had n mr johnson had a hernia we're not sure when it arose that he was in the georgia prison system fast forward to june of two thousand and thirteen he was still a department of corrections inmate and he was at the precise county jail apparently the doctor decided that he should have surgery so surgery was scheduled for over a month later july th two thousand and thirteen so fast forward our season july th to fast forward to july th there was a transport today possible time you please ensure the inmates transported so i understand i understand the question about whether it's a response to something or whether it's a natural request i understand from my folks that it was a request and that's what they're responding to the bigger point in this particular deal is that he's not in the loop here they had absolutely nothing to do with this request proceed any further the grievance is about why did they send me to department of corrections the court order says i shouldn't have been sent to the department of corrections and they cancelled my surgery at the hospital  people who did that that's what the grievances about it doesn't say with what the surgeries about doesn't say what the medical issue is about and that's really not what the grievances about all they only it's a piece of evidence that i can see in the record and the one that was cited by counsel is in the inmate request greve it was noted as exhibit sixteen and in it there was a response from one of your clients who writes in response to the grave and filed by mr johnson this decision was made referring to the transfer signatory and who wrote this stock and knew that he was going for a procedure although it's not clear that when they referenced when see references we sent you there for the procedure you requested to be done that he was referring to the surgery as opposed to a medical evaluation in a medical facility of the deal say is there any other evidence bearing there's no evidence favors the point there is evidence from the n g s they both testified they didn't know anything about this inmate's medical condition they were not involved in dealing with his medical condition they were not even in the chain of command moment referring to hugh's he at least signed off on the transfer order as the supervisor is there any evidence that leaves played any role in the  responsibility for signing off on these transfer orders answer that question because i don't know the day to day workings and whether there was in change whether i'm just asking a simple question is there any record evidence in front of me jeff knowing that checklist is how he referenced it does the signing off thing so my understanding is that you know inmates are supposed to be transferred on the morning of the transfer it is across his desk and he's supposed to sign off on a checklist i don't know specifically what's what's in the checklist but i think it's a ministerial sort of thing like ok he's got everything space to get have him and he's you know being sent with the right stuff and that's it so it's not a medical evaluation in any  simply doesn't have all the stuff that he needs that we're supposed to send him with is there any final question is there any evidence that the order that was issued by the state court directing  he not be transferred back to dio c cost of the that they had any knowledge of that or that it was going to file that the prison had that forsyth county had with the sheriff's office on the court order it says it goes to counsel for the state and counsel for for mr johnson doesn't say that it went to the sheriff's office that said it wouldn't be surprising to me if it went to the sheriff's office because it's supposed to  it's supposed to you know they're supposed to know about it and not transfer him so i can't say specifically where it went or who had it so far as he and use the evidence is no they didn't know anything about it fees response to grievances i will need to see the court order to proceed any further so if it was in the file he would have been able to grab it and see it in the file and it appears that he was not able to do that district court properly denied qualified immunity to defendants the court can quickly dispose of disappear by affirming the district court on the ground that stand in direct defiance of a lawful court order was outside there already and therefore the defense of qualified immunity is not available to them or that defendants failed to meet their burden to show that they acted within the scope of their discretionary authority that's above that is that is that when it's not clear that we have evidence that they specifically stated that mr johnson shall not be returned to the department of corrections and that's exactly what happened  what about what about the fact that we don't have any evidence that we don't have any evidence of the direct involvement people and the transfer so i don't think that the court needs to d reach that issue is it agreed that the defendants acted outside the scope of their discretionary authority is that what i think my question is and what way would they have acted outside the scope of their discretionary authority if we have evidence that they acted at all sure i understand well i i think that the only issue before the court on appeal given the limited jurisdiction here is the appeal of qualified immunity and the threshold increase of discretionary authority has to be decided before moving on to looking at the evidence of whether they were even involved in the transfer or not issues if they didn't have the authority need to be left to the district court but if the court moves on beyond that i think that there was evidence that they were both defendants were involved in the transfer that he even had supervised the farty over in so far as you actually did play a role in the transfer so what is there to tell me that that would establish that played any role whatsoever in the transfer which is after all the act that forms the core of the deliberate in indifference  procedure you requested to be done is there any other evidence that implicates in the actual decision to transfer there is a grievance and there is the inference that should be times i mean i i read it i appreciate it but i don't find any evidentiary support for the state that there is one admittedly there's nothing in the record beyond beyond whether there's a serious injury for me that's not a hard question and let's go beyond the question of let's assume for the purposes of my question that hughes was involved in the act of transfer by actually signing off on the transfer that day what evidence is there in the record that either use or the knew that that they knew that his sworn affidavit that indicates that he reviewed records filled out a checklist and signed off on mr johnson's transfer last item what you're talking about there appears on page two of the unfortunately not your honor and part of that is because the folder was not produced to mr johnson in the course of discovery despite a request that mr johnson believes was on point to those in other records which has been an issue throughout this litigation probably is a problem that i'm having is that i'm stuck with the record that was presented here and that's made  of the total record for this court and in order to establish deliberate indifference to a serious medical need the plaintiff must a staff the subjective knowledge negligence and the problem that i have right off at the outset is i don't see any knowledge that this fabulous i don't see all evidence that  establish deliberate indifference to a serious fall certainly around and i would just briefly reiterate that even before getting to that question in a manner that was not within their discretionary authority the case is over even if judge story was wrong on the nd issue you would have to refer i understand that but i'm assuming for the purposes of my question specifically that to the extent they acted at all they acted within the scope of their discretionary authority and i'm asking you how do you  of them has the subject of knowledge of the risk of serious all understood your honor and again i would point to the big reasons and the checklist which those need to be taken in the thirteen and i have the handwritten notes by lieutenant and that it was signed by sergeant allocate uses well what is it in that hernia was an ongoing issue again i would just point to that you see the problem with that is we we know that they had and i think that the the grievance the checklist and the nature of the facility all has to be taken together and considered collectively with all inferences taken in favor of m and so when we talk about the grievance st one thing that i that i think i need to point out there hasn't been mentioned is that it's kind of a dating issue lieutenant fee and sergeant hughes if you look at the grievance signed off g smith and the date on that is the twenty three days later so everything that smith the right you know is is smith writing it's not fees writing and feeing hughes are not signing off on anything except we how do we know that because at the well there are two ways you know that one is that after that kind of large paragraph it's signed off on the bottom right of that is he's signature and it says i will need to see said court order to proceed any further and the rest is blank so that's everything that fia and use said and did in response to that prevents let me ask you this declaration and it's only a reference to the checklist blame me on the lawyer if i thought that the checklist was was you know mattered i sure would have filed it i didn't think that any argument would be made about it you know i don't f the what i can find in the record so there isn't a checklist in the record and i would submit that the best evidence rule says if you're going to rely upon some document you've got to have that document so i don't think that any inference can be drawn from whatever the checklist might have been i will say also in answer to your previous question the declaration of charles smith is in the record document eighty five and it doesn't say anything about this grievance he was only seated in relation to a different claim so that's the only thing  declaration addresses so that that's that let me talk about briefly this court order the court order does not confine anybody's discretionary authority him at the portman of corrections he's not to be sent back to the department of corrections and it really doesn't say anything about sending him for a medical board appointment that happens to be at the georgia department of corrections so it's not a violation of the court order to honor this request to send him to a medical appointment at the department of corrections i think as it turned out he was kept at the department of corrections for a bit longer than then than was intended but that was all in the department of corrections the point the court order is i want him here available for court when we have court so does the council does the record reflect how what was filed particular record there is anything about what triggered that court order in the litigation that trigger that court order mr johnson had that material and if he filed something along those lines i don't remember the last thing i'll mention about the court order is that i just don't think it has anything to do with the qualified immunity discretionary authority element you know again there's no information that they even knew about th