levy and today we are asking this court to reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the marion county sheriff who held mr levy in custody for two and a half days after the point in which is bond was paid as a result of the fact that his computer system couldn't communicate court orders to release him mr levy after the point of his arrest was booked and had his bond posted within about three hours but nevertheless he was held in jail by the sheriff of marion county until the time of his initial hearing and actually for an additional twenty four hours after that what matters most in this case and what the district court overlooked is the causal link between that unconstitutional over detention and the sheriff's custom practice or policy of processing releases through its chosen computer system the offender management system his briefs the sheriff concedes that use of this computer system and conjunction with the rest of its release process doesn't fact constitute its official policy so in other words this is municipal action system in a way that would permit a new court order with a new code for the defendants released status to override the old code coming from the courts directing the a policy to take care of that problem and that policy is that when there's a new court order that purports to overwrite the old court order that has been coded into the system the court staff calls the sheriff's staff and tells it to overwrite for billy and that didn't happen here there was no phone call from the court staff to the sheriff's office pursuant to the sheriff's policy so it was simply a misfire and individual missed fire the policy which is not enough to sustain a mono policy in practice claim it doesn't establish deliberate indifference and it doesn't establish causation the causation here is attributable to the court staff dropping  ball to the extent that the policy is implicated the policy is fine it just didn't work in this single case you don't have any evidence of repeated failures or repeated time line in which this release workflow is developed the release workflow arose and the face of widespread complaints over detention and the fact that defendants were languishing in jail for days weeks past the point time they were being ordered released because the computer system couldn't communicate those orders understood and they've the the two agencies the courts and the sheriff have implemented a fix and that's the phone call policy by phone and you have no evidence that that policy that feature the policy has repeatedly failed and that's what you need in order to sustain a mono claim respectfully disagree with the characterization of this release for a closer fix because it clearly didn't work to mr levy's case and that's all i think a failure is not enough to carry him now claim it is under the pember decision the united states supreme court policymaker and it's not the court's staff's constitutional responsibility to release detainees it's the sheriff's there's a suggestion in the briefs some point by the sheriff that well mr levy's remedy here was to sue court staff because this is an error of court staff respectfully i think the suit against the court staff would have probably been thrown out on twelve emotion because the court staff has no duty to release and mates under the constitution as ignores that the release workflow was developed as a manual track and as a system of manually updating this offender management system in the face of numerous complaints because it was unable to itself automatically communicate court release orders dirt peterson the sheriff's afy in this case who is their chief information officer testified that the idea for the release workflow st came about and january th teen which is six or seven months after the offender management system went live if you will and he testified that prior to that point in time the sheriff was not knowing when orders were coming down the pike through the odyssey system because the offender management system couldn't process and communicate those  orders this circuit in the driver case in two thousand and seventeen recognized that face of this evidence of incompatibilities with the offender management system courts in marion county were having to resort to what it called alternative channels of communication  listed some of those examples telephone calls e mails faxes that sort of thing and what the district court in this case overlooks is that the release workflow is that alternative channel of communication it's a way for the course to communicate outside of the computer systems because the sheriff just a computer system can't receive court orders and shifting to the deliberate indifference element here the sheriff adopted this computer system without properly vetting it in fact it received the computer system for free and not only was it free it was actually profitable because in exchange for adopting this computer system and extended a contract that paid at millions of dollars and telephone call and mate revenue and the city of minneapolis and consolidated marion county of marion we have an agency the information services agency who exists to advise entities like the sheriff on these sorts of technology platforms and technology changes there's actually a code municipal code in annapolis that requires the sheriff and other agencies to consult i a say on these matters of software and the sheriff didn't do that and barbara thompson who was the contract manager fries at the time testified an affidavit that surf number one did not come to them and and there's abundant evidence in the record of the sheriff sticking with this computer system with years of knowledge of complaints by n h s lawyers judges even members of its own entity pointing out that they are just abundant and consistencies but all none of those complaints are about what's at issue here are they specifically none of those complaints about the call not happening from the court on a subsequent release order that's right i so doesn't that impact or deliberate indifference argument if they were about the system on the front and i think you'd have a much stronger argument but how would they on notice of a problem that would go to the deliber te difference element if there were no problems with this particular aspect and that's fairly or your honor why i stated that the crucial part of this appeal is the causal link element because the sh sheriff released workflow exists due to an accident with these with this computer system this is not a perfect world but in a rational world the release workflow doesn't even need to exist why because in a rational world the cour computer system just put in an order transmitted to the serious computer system share season acts upon that order but that didn't happen in this case and as a result of the fact that didn't happen and to try and remedy problems like this th put in his release workflow and that what the they're supposed to do if there's a problem and it comes to their attention attempt to fix it or put in a backup plan as the court talked about armstrong ye to see obligated to make improvements but in this case what it's doing is making excuses and trying to push it off the court staff they were centrally in any number of ways the sheriff to remedy this problem with its computer system the least of which is to consider the court's recommendation to switch computer systems but instead what it tried to do was put in this release workflow of some sort of patches that ultimately failed in mr levy's case and led to his constitutional retention morning i'm tony overholt here on behalf of the marin county sheriff the district court properly analyzed this case by looking at the specific facts of what happened with mr levy it looked to the fact that showed exactly how the o m f system transmitted information how it worked in this case and it showed that the system worked as judge sykes indicated the problem was that was an isolated failure by member of the court staff someone failed to do what they were supposed to do that's not deliberate indifference the driver case which is talked about extensively in the plaintiff's brief in which i did not spend much time on in my brief is quite frankly irrelevant that is a class action pending in the district court there has been no class everything he said based on evidence that's been produced and writer but again that's not what we're here today to talk about we're here to talk about the story levy and what happened with mr levy so the status of the john litigation i system recognize that number one use of this computer system represents what this circuit understands to be a custom policy or practice under my own now and secondly i recognize that as a result of this inadequate computer system that courts are having to resort to these alternate channels of communication drivers extremely relevant this case and further the we are challenging is not the lack of a phone call what we are challenging is the fact that a phone calls unnecessary because it stems directly from the fact that shows a computer system can adequately and on its own communicate court orders and the defendant sheriff here has no evidence