fact there have been a number of different executives during this period of time so where does that leave us on your individuals because you just said the officer not the end i did not i never ascertain the person's name we never got we never were able allowed to engage in discovery because the case was dismissed we would have gladly substitute the press is the name in the complaint if we were given the opportunity to ascertain that information  it's i think the argument is that actually this is a suit an official capacity only because you did not name the individual well your honor i respectfully disagree with that position say we clearly spelled out that the person that we were soon was the one person in charge at the time of the incident they knew the person was it would have been more clear for the record if we had a name of course but we said that this person was being suing the individual of the database was not was not a discretionary act it was mandatory they had to do it by operation of law the pelisse criminal protective order was terminated and once it was terminated the clerk had no choice puts removed his name out of the database which they failed to do we feel that because it was not discretionary at that immunity does not apply and the pel the police are going to argue that it has stated that if the if the if the acts of the clerk are not discretionary then there nine title to this type of immunity and that's our argument and one what is there are you know in the record or in your complaint to but that's not part of the court system and we got routed to the executive corps officer and this person is in charge of removing or two in placing in charge of placing names in a database removing them this is the information we were given this is why we went after this this particularly the bishop but you haven't had an opportunity to amend the complaint we have we have between the men but it wasn't about that particular issue and ju see bork respectfully he kind of he honed in on these parties to claims these two issues and he dismissed the case so we really haven't had our between to really expand or conducting discovery to really make the record clear or it's really  minute violation and one i mean i realize we don't have a motion for qualified immunity and that may come at a later stage of the case but i would just to presume you've given some thought to the question of what what what is the authority that clearly establishes the principle that a clerk can be subject individual liability for not entering an order that's it that's excellent question and i have not i have looked into it because that's a concern to me if we were able to get back down to the district court going qualify mune we feel that there's case law out there that just says that that that the clerk was mandated to remove the name of the database that it was not discretionary in for that reason that's that's to control case law that we have to show that this person should have known that they should have removed his name database and if my client was injured as a result then they should be held liable for your theory based purely on case law not statute a regulation ye my name is sharon nagel i represent the core executive officer for the spear court of california county of sonoma this court is recognized immunity for court employees when they perform acts that are part of the judicial function even after the anton case was decided and that was in more of the brewster and also in the case in his studio this court recognized cause i judicial immunity for a bankruptcy trustee for failure to give notice of a hearing which led to the for closure of the debtors home and the court significantly stated that when viewed out of context or in isolation that act which seems like a clerical act wouldn't be within the scope of immunity however when that's viewed in the context of the what happened because in one part of the complaint it's alleged that the the c p o lapsed on its own and in another part of the complaint it's alleged that the court executor court executive officer failed to remove a terminating order and in looking at the the supplemental excerpts of record one of the documents was the c p o and on that it states in order to remove it a terminating order needs to be sent so it's part of this adjudicatory process of resolving the criminal dispute as well as imposing sentencing and one of the things that the court looked at in chrystia was was part of way and here i think we have a similarity because part of the sentencing involves the imposition of this criminal protective order and the transfer into clades and the transfer into clades is merely how the c inforced a c p o that exists only in the courthouse is obviously not nearly as effective as a c p o that's transmitted into a database so the clerk's action is really just an extension of that judicial function of adjudicating a hard is is this in fact an individual capacity suit when and when the person is named in is it in his personal an official capacity but the actual person isn't specified and there's no service  person exactly our bill so what are we supposed to do with well our position is that that's an official capacity suit because official capacity suits are directed at the office and as your honor noted there have been several court executive officers who have motion to dismiss were quasi i do dish will immunity at the th amendment and failure to state a claim was a look at the district court order the judge does not say anything about well you know if you named this person individually this would be a different  district judge talked about quiz a judicial immunity which would come up only if this were an individual capacity suit i suppose that's true your honor yes and yet that court the district court didn't specifically go every move in the information from the database i don't think that's that's i know we're getting down the road here in the right but i'm just asking i think that it's mandatory if there is an order at their  think there has to be a terminating order court executive officer assuming for purposes of argument that it is the core executive officer who is personally tast with removing the orders from clades and i think that the court executive officer and can't decide on his or her own can't make that decision by himself to terminate an order that has to come from a judicial that and that was one of the allegations in the complaint that it expired as part of the probation but in looking at the supplemental excerpts of record that the appellant submitted in looking at the language on the actual c p o it says that indicates that the court executive officer is the person who has the ability to make the decision to remove an order from class  i just wanted to add one more thing about previous cases in this court and and the the act of giving notice or filing documents has always been recognized as something that's very closely associated with the judicial process and this court has found in in the case in morrison and mullis that clerks are merely the conduit by the way judicial actions happen so filing documents are giving and unless your honour's have any other question i just wanna make sure i understand your argument you're argument i'm looking at the excerpt to record is that you can tell the this was not a self executing document in the sense that it did not turn out so and that it required a court order and therefore because it required a court order that was a function that came with and it just will function correct  that means that once he was no longer on probation the current protective order automatically terminated there was no order they had to be given to the clerks for you to after that for the his name to be removed it was mandatory they had to remove by operation of law it was terminated by operation of law and based on that they were required not not based on their discretion but as a duty to remove his name out of the the excerpts of record as well as well as the district attorney's office i read that public defender letter doesn't quite say that yes john well the district attorney's office also said that his probation it terminated unsuccessfully unsuccessfully on these mistakes that occurred but all we have here is an entry that says probation reinstated probation terminated unsuccessfully yes and we're supposed to conclude that the probation was terminated successfully from that not that it was successful not just at that particular probation that involved the current protective order was no longer in effect that's all we're saying what he had a subsequent probation after that that has nothing to do with the current protective order that was in place that