county and city defendants the capacities of the parties was expressly and unasked plant but ambiguously stated in the party section of plaintiff's complaint played it was identified not as an individual  that the capacity must be identified as an individual the exact language that was used in the complaint our position quite frankly is that no person could mistake the capacity in which each party was identified in the party section of the complaint and in which they were sued which is the very purpose of that section each of the individual defendants and counsel what's the standard term view on this issue the pleading issue discretion standard the issue is going to be one to whether there was an erroneous conclusion of fact that is in this case whether in fact they were identified as individuals in the party section of the complaint which district court suggested we simply referred to them as individuals we didn't just refer to them as individuals we refer to them as individuals in the party section of the complaint which has a specific purpose under the federal rules as well with issue of the legal standard we this was kept came out in oral d argument our understanding too was that the court was operating under an incorrect understanding of the lot that only the word individually would suffice and that only that word the word individual but our cases which are focused decision wise on this issue have talked about pleading in the individual compact individual capacity the contest that he in critical to that to the use of the various different ways in which courts have and affirmed the various ways in which court has accepted this the type of pleading my best case in this regard in the th circuit is jackson versus cru and seventy three fate nd eleven o five in which this court the circuit was very clear that yes we have announced a particular standard and and that this is instructional however the legal issue is not whether you use the word individual versus individual leap but whether you commute communicated the individual capacity in which they were being sued the capacity section is the party section they were identified that in that section as an individual in that section which well it's not a it well it's not a because in this case is not in the question of the discretion of the court in whether we had satisfied its own particular understanding is a legal question with respect to abrogation of sovereign immunity and whether we clearly identified the individual capacity in which these individuals were sued and so that legal question is simply a question of did you identify them sufficiently and clearly enough and that's what this court's cases have said with respect to th on iraq and i think that then the question is ways strick individually comic individually doesn't necessarily suggest anything about the capacity it could be you were suing them individually rather than joint talking about so a lot of hills some of a lot of individuals but one quote in their official capacity for purposes of county san francisco versus brown supervisor liability sure and in those cases most of the time if your type simply in the party sexing section identifying him as a person you would say that so and so is a person rather than they are an individual which has a specific legal is not a matter of strict it's a matter of sort of you go into a level of of extremism almost that avoid the specific question which is what this clearly communicated you were sued as an individual that's what the party section communicates in this case given they were seated next to that city they were sued because each either was expressly told by several witnesses or through various records they camer had serious violent outburst had serious mental health issues and had inflicted harm upon himself in a series of recent and violent episodes and in fact ardent another person in the very episode for which he was arrested that evening as much as it is on the facts of this case have we established facts efficient for a reason or rational observers make a reasonable inference of knowledge an appreciation of the risk and here and i believe it in distinguishing age that there were numbers of factors not just one there were a number of witnesses not just one who gave information to both the officers and the cherokee and decoded correctional deputies that put notice and in fact demonstrated both the knowledge and appreciation of risk based on two things one the facts that were relating that camera hat real mental health issues a ticket hammer to his head two weeks ago with the klein group and drew blood had jumped out of cars a few go up dozen times moving cars meaning at least twenty four times that done these things had a history of drugs and drug abuse his girlfriend had communicated that he needed to go to the doctor to be diagnosed because she under believe he was bipolar and manic was his baby or that he couldn't control himself when he's mad had a history of self mutilation he's fearful to himself and in fact has a history of trying to hurt himself it's not of course or say he wants to kill himself that's a very high hurdle in suggesting that that basically there was no knowledge of that happening is the allegation that the that the policy itself this is unconstitutional policy they were view is they didn't even follow policy in the in the example both of the city in the county that with the city they were required to report this information to the county they didn't they did absolutely nothing and the issue is that these officers individual ethnic or why that's that's very conclusory i had i don't understand why what the city was required to report only if there was a basis to her court no mother's statement to present and art or his statements in the in the transport and to run quest all of the statements were required to be reported to the county in particular there is  the city what the offender tracking form was what we reported he was very clear this is information that needs to be communicated to the jail to get the individual in he made it clear it wasn't just arresting information but also it was for that asked we actually asked even one of the witnesses defendant ripest what do you understand suicidal tendencies to be i asked him i said you say you've been trained so what does is rip what reflects or what of mental health issues or suicidality he said anger i said well can you think of anything else now up that was the full extent of his understanding and appreciation of symptomology of mental health and suicide suicidality and mental health issues and mental health crisis therefore when he learned of these anger issues you understood and appreciated there was substantial risk of both serious bodily harm and suicidality we have gone through a number of statements that were made and communicated to the county as well as to the city and in it specifically the the mental health issues and combination of violence and the labeling of mr left which analyzed whether any of the individual defendants committed a constitutional violation so that even though you were dismissed on the claims against individuals because of this custom and practice issues it only addressed the individual violation so in order for the capacity pleadings issue to make any difference you'd have to prevail on your modelling he already did and show that there was an individual violation i think that there are cases in this court and each circuit has been clear that you don't necessarily have to have an individual who violated that is an individual defendant liable yes you have to show an underlying conchobar constitutional violation that is either by the collective action of the city and or county what respectively the city or in the county that there was an under the underlying constitutional violation i cannot see him either nor i the issue of whether or not a pilot charlie played the individual capacity claimed i think it's important to understand that the very fact that we're sitting here arguing about what an individual  properly plead the correct path well you have the merits of the mono claim and my point was the district judge analyze whether any of the individual defendants violated the constitution in resolving so if you prevail on that defending that judgment then it would follow that the individuals who are out whether they were pleaded as individual capacity or not and that's a fair statement court and concluded there was no individual violation then if they were sued in their individual capacities crossfire and unity would have to be addressed so if you look at the facts as alleged by the appellant i think the only facts that were communicated to the callee include the following that mr left which had been arrested for a violent crime he had been allegedly diagnosed with this order that he was unemployed he had no stable home and was allegedly allegedly manic depressive and so from those facts as it relates to the double isn't enough there is a chorus of cases where simply having dual disorder isn't enough but even those healthy together they may show or may tend to indicate that the person has a mental illness but certainly don't indicate that it is or less which was suicidal and i would also argue that in addition to those particular that even if they did show some sort of inference of the suicidal tendencies the need to prove that the county defendant actually threw the inference that mr left which was in fact suicidal and that contrary to the evidence here all of the county witnesses testified that they didn't police report all they have a better track which indicated that he had no specific indication of suicidal tendencies and their own analysis and so based upon those we believe that the court should  to and as the district court rules failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issues of material as to whether these officers had actual knowledge or whether they were deliberately indifferent to it i'll go through those three officers really quickly and i urge the court to watch the and listen to the video of the squad video and audio so officer quest went to the hospital took mr which from there to the county jail it was within fifty minutes mr left which is calm quiet time articulate not under the influence of alcohol or drugs talking about his future self aware about his issues with anger management and at the end of that based on that o fairly and adequately concluded that there was no likelihood of a suicide risk or let alone a substantial likelihood his and after the of fact his assessment is confirmed had no concern the probation officer or the social worker court personnel added at his hearing and and so i had no reason to report that information to anyone else within the city or within the county office or ramsey interviewed his role only was interviewing the victim and left which is mother officer randy testified that when he asked if mr left with a suicidal she said no mom testified she had recollection of that conversation that does not create a genuine issue of material fact it is undisputed that the officer asked a question and that's the answer he got  question on that mr hyde did my say also that she believed at the time that the son was suicidal she did testify in her deposition that she thought that yes but that is not the same as have i'm sorry your honor just to follow i think the argument from the other side than in the there is a genuine dispute in fact about whether she made the statement to read is nice because if she doesn't remember saying it and she says she didn't believe and then one might infer that she wouldn't have s yes but then i also would point out that mom talked to mr left which over that whole thirty hour twenty or twenty seven hour period he was in the jail five or six times and none of those times did mr left which expressed any  anything that caused her concern about him being suicidal she would have done something about it i think that also i guess you know officer randy's testimony is that  through speaking with the mom and the victim you believe this was an anger issue not a mental health issue and again in terms of whether mr whether officer ramsey had actual knowledge i don't believe that that mom saying that she thought now after the fact thought that raises a question i think the jury i think the judge rightly found that no reasonable jury given all of these facts together could come to that arguments to the contrary and including the district court that deputy testified that he did not would not automatically place someone on a higher was just one of those boxes and check that it depended on the individual case by if the court believes that the district court erred in finding that this portion of the form was a discretionary act or conduct rather that i mean if a difficult area finding is discretionary and that was a ministerial even then there was no duty on this sergeant or by law or statute d creating a duty to do some kind of a sussman or doing anything more and in addition then in applying that to the assessment of the other the other claims being made there's no proximate cause in the least and that in terms of the jail something that happens in the jail thirty some hours or approximate thirty hours later and again i think the people who are in the best position to  stops or mr left which i'm self mom the people with them is the victim none of those people raised an issue about him being suicidal risk i just overall i believe the law makes sense to these undisputed facts and these officers could you address what seems to be the the main argument that there was disclosure of suicide risk which is the conclusion based on that him asking mom if she was suicidal which is the earlier question you raise judged and i you know i don't think that officer there's no proof that that officer resonated then took that knowledge and then bought that equated to a substantial likelihood of a risk of suicide that merely this gentleman had an anger problem and  certainly that was concluded by all the new again the numerous people at the colony over the thirty hours that he was there before fortunately committed suicide we can hear you judge lo turn it off and back on the other two have let's just let's just finish up ok as to the merits i think that this now here in the arguments if you really sheds light on this central issue which is there are substantial and material disputed issues of fact as to who said what when what someone did or didn't say and whether we can lend credibility to denials the suggestion that seems to be raised repeatedly is self inflicted harm here and then that nothing was done in deliberate disregard of that risk here there's no dispute that nothing was done at the question is whether they had knowledge and appreciation of risk is well only four things were raised through for example deputy kolker we've laid out at least fourteen different issues in fact that there was a disclosure of mental illness that not only was there a disclosure there was a disclosure that he was not taking any medication for his disorder were being treated for his disorder that he had been involved in a domestic assault and violence that was a serious offense and in fact everyone seems to overlook this fact that it's mentioned in our brief that there was a blinking red suicide reading like that came on in the jail p c i system during the booking because of cameron's disclosures that these are there's a multitude of factors that we've raised that are simply