the court in this case below i kick out the grand summary judgment at this stage of the process holding a plaintiff had not alleged violation of actual constitutional rights in this instance plead qualified immunity the court was then proceed to determine whether there at that rate risk so clearly established that would be clear to a reason why officer in a situation that the conduct gaijin was was against the law this determination is necessarily fact specific as this court held in a state of for not too long ago have to carry the burden of showing qualified immunity a burden which the defendant officials hold here they must show that a reasonable officer would not have known of the planets particular circumstance or would not have appreciated the harm that would result from ignoring that particular circumstance if immunity is denied defense can still win on summary judgment by showing here had not alleged a constitutional violation however this case presents a classic example of the violation for the denial of medical treatment to a prisoner a violation that has been well established in this word and the supreme or that they simply haven't given any reasons for doing it my position would be that that is correct as to the first prong of the analysis that on the on the complaint as a split you have a constitutional i see that is going to the the the argue that they were acting objectively reasonable in this situation by relying on this jail policy however the most the most significant point here is if we find that they were acting reasonably by  medication four times a day under the jail policy we must also find that they were acting under reasonably by failing to follow the same provision of that similar provisions that same policy which required medication to be  that whether there is there their conduct was an objective leap reasonable under the circumstances saying it comes into play in the consideration of whether this qualified immunity exactly right comes into play and whether there was qualified immunity at this point and it could come into play at and they certainly recognize that analysis of qualified immunity or laying atop of a constitutional right must be made any specific factual context there's  specific analysis shows the aft from january thirty one to february ninth which is nine days mr prohack was administered this pain medication for the times a day now if they had followed it every four hours they did not the question is whether or not that's a constitutional violation but i agree with you judge present that perhaps if the doctor says every four hours as needed then you should get up in the middle of either party have somebody there in the middle of the the question of qualified immunity is whether or not the officer it was taking legality of a constitutional right or whether there was a clearly established constitutional right of watch the recent loss or would have known that's our position that the officer would not have known that it was constitutionally necessary to administer medication at four o'clock in the morning that gap between nine and seven will accident the officer know that it has been prescribed by the  reasonable to withhold medication if it was a vector really reasonable to withhold the medication that's that has to do with his subjective intent i think the question is whether or not there is a closely analogous case that would allow an officer to withhold medication situation or situation an emergency or situation where if you don't administer the medications such as in the cases cited by counsel there is going to be an increase of his medical condition and in that regard could you briefly  doctor's orders at the same time you have to follow this policy that does not give an option objective lee reasonable basis to rely upon it in in actually violating