resolved one gentleman so the district court divided up plane has nine hundred and eighty three claims into four theories of liability number one that the hospital employees should have provided notice of the acuity reprocess really backed up and  in alameda county a couple months after that questions about his competency arose after three different alienist evaluated him two of the ilian is evaluations that he was incompetent alien as the st ones that he was competent to stand trial but the judge at that point decided that it was incompetent to stand trial and asked for a contract to make a placement recommendation contract which is in this case  commitment quarter any information about mister longears provided to the department of state hospitals that happen but i do it right he is in santa rita jail in alameda county he's ready for admission on the waitlist so napa state hospital contacts the jail to schedule the transport which is done by the sheriff and at that time they learn that he was murdered that very morning by his dummy so the defendants in this case are just four individuals  holland who at the time was the director of the department of state hospitals dolly mature she who is the executive director of the napa state hospital doctor tyler she was the medical director of napa state hospital and the clinical administrator at napa state hospital now none of these i mean none of these the bennetts even knew about mister long until after he was murdered but they are the defendants in this case because the claims against the end he announced have already been dismissed between when the commitment order was transferred to napa and when napa had a bed available to admit him so as to how this claim goes against the hospital employees and he issues about the wait list or delays are not at issue in the ho do come up in the cross appeal and those issues are also being litigated right now as you mention in this deal that he case coming out alameda county so what is it what what is it what is your understanding of what  only to provide notice and as public there's still a public comment period but it's a much shorter period then for doing the regulator issuance of a regulation there's a longer notice period for the public to wait an in jail who have been cleared by a court to be incompetent to stand trial and is this court stated a long time ago in the organ vs me being case they have to rights under the due process clause st of all one is the right to be free from continued incarceration after their charges have been suspended and the other is the right to timely restored treatment as ordered by the court in the case the court affirmed an injunction requiring the state of oregon to provide that triggered within seven days and this court explained that failure to provide such treatment in a timely manner meaning longer than weeks or months violates the due process their care eighty one days went by before he was finally going to be admitted and unfortunately that was the day that he was also killed the defended ministre hers were basically apex administrators were budget support for and over many years they chose not to do it as a california court of appeals noted recently in the cream a case the defendants had years to change and fix a system that was under list to let the sickest ones in st but they would only do that acuity review asked from someone at the jail level and they never informed anybody at the jail if that was possible so as a district court found this informal procedure to allow the sickest in st would not work because he didn't tell the people about it now at the time mister long public defender clifford blakely thus people at a state level or anywhere are not watching that at the regulatory you know us code to see if the changes they made today the state never told anybody that they had this procedure whatsoever and so nobody knew would ask that the st thing they should have done but they also could have done and should have done they should have a provided a cure for everybody that was declared incompetent to stand trial no hospital what operate in such a way that somebody coming in with a heart attack has to wait in line behind someone who got there earlier with a sprained ankle and then you all hospitals to have you with the reviews like this every emergency room in the country has triage system where they bring in the things people st and we've have expert testimony in the record here that has to be credited that the state hospital system should have had an acuity review system because it's critical to take care of those with the most severe psychiatric needs and they have a duty not to be deliberately indifferent to those needs or to fail to act as a reasonable professional would act in these situations but the question here in this case is one of right to timely restored treatment that's the level of of clarity required by the supreme court as supreme court just explained again in taylor vs realized general constitutional rules may apply with right to suicide screening and the problem with that but they found that it was not clearly established in a rd circuit in two thousand and four and they never reached the more specific factual issues of what the defendant s failed to fail to do to protect that right now but and here is the hospital the jail the defendant are the hospital administrators individuals with the power to make specific changes many of which we've we've cited in our brief in multiple places as this court explained in an horton versus city of santa maria there is a process that the court follows when deciding qualified immunity and a due process case because there is inherent problems in reviewing qualified immunity when there's a subjective intent component and here since this incident happened back at the time when they were still subject of the tent for qualified immunity  a due process claim human of a pretrial detainee we can except for the qualified immunity analysis so as the court explained what we're supposed to do st is look at the more objective components is there evidence in the record that plaintiff or the deceit in face a substantial risk of harm while yes there is evidence because all of the defendants admit not only was there such a risk but they were aware of it they were aware the jails failed to provide adequate adequate medical care they were aware that people with severe mental illness are likely to be preyed upon by other inmates we also have expert testimony including from a neologism done a study and found that in fact mentally ill jail inmates some for greater harm  not it it goes to the risk of harm that any reasonable official in the defendant's shoes would have known about and that in fact these defendants admit knowing about this testimony on the record that they knew that individuals situated like m was concerned that inmates would having to wait more than weeks or months that their rights were being violated they had options they could have expanded bed capacity they could have done acuity reviews for everybody that was going to be sen right and it's not an overcrowding that's beyond their power to rectify your honor it's been going on for more than a decade and they are individuals making these decisions knowing that many inmates rights are being violated so far we've identified twelve inma be number one number two they could have treated i esteem inmates who were at that point or merely simply committed equal to how they treat convicted prisoners who they do not take on a st come st serve basis but they standard at least for the due to the deliberate indifference claim but we also have the main claim which is not a deliberate indifference claimed you know it's a reasonable medical professional judgment claim and so i think that's a different  more objective standard anyways but i'm saying even under the deliberate the deliberate indifference standard for example in the castro case which was addressing that the court said look it's requiring too much to identify every way in which a prisoner could be injured by another prisoner and that's kind of what the defendants are requiring here once the court has identified the right it is human and we have identified it in three different ways then the court process deliberate indifference to medical needs there's a hutchinson case which says medical officials who engage in denial delay or intentional interference with medical treatment have violent and have been deliberately indifferent to rights so here they as to the fact that there is still pending in this case i gather that's right there is nothing else pending in the face other than this one federal claim and one corresponding the negligence claim case after the so what she told me is not well i don't think she said it truly i think she did say that other defendants from the county have settled out the only defendants remaining part of the individual's and state the court granted qualified immunity well it's true there would be a negligence claim that would be the last claim and then we'd have a trial of just that and then afterward then we would appeal and so counsel be i'm still trying to understand what or there's three reasons why it is state essentially had custody of him no no what is the case what is the authority that makes this clearly established that he should be regarded as being in that the that the standards were a now in applicable and therefore were not discussed it's not true that these hospital employees create the budget for the department of state hospital and that the legislature that creates the budget and we presented evidence that it was beyond the authority and control constitutional rights the narrow issues on appeal are whether clearly established lump of these individual hospital employees on notice that they would be violating the constitution if they did not provide them the review process and whether there was a special relationship between the hospital employees and mister long because the answer to these questions is no they are entitled to qualified immunity thank you for the questions thank you for your arguments for you to be submitted for