and professor hashimoto yes your honor you and your students are representing mr goodman that's correct your hon and incorporates by reference has verified complaints mr goodman sworn complaints raised to genuine just the material that he suffered abuse so just proportionate to any conceivable legitimate need that a jury you move on does it matter and then it least for your proposal does it matter whether the two previous shorn complaints are different from or inconsistent with the  eating purposes of the document contradicted those statements retain their evidentiary value and just because certain statements may be later contradicted the complaint as a whole to the extent that it needs those will to be six requirements would retain  there really factual differences between the people that your honor mr goodman the nd amended complaint identified his only changes which were adding the defendant names that he had learned so he swaps the defendant's names out where he had previously written john and jane doe and there was an update to the remedy section in his nd amended complaint he's disappeared plea stated please be advise of a quiet document all other in its summation seems to make it a part of that there is the added factors here and i don't know to what extent we need to incorporate to add is that this individual was pro se in this greeted by references previous complaints by articulating the changes he was making while alleging the same smack about abuse and injury he suffered after the end of the defense additionally in his opposition to summary judgment mr goodman conceivably legitimate need for the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant acted with malicious intent rather than to secure compliance mr goodman was not resisting and did not pose a security threat justifying the level of standing and kneeling on his neck and back and twice dragging him across after the income council cannot decide i don't want you to stop telling the facts that i don't understand where we are in the decision tree if we agree with you that the district court erred in failing to consider the sworn complaint is the right result for us to then they caved in re mandated and allowed the district court to analyze the specifics of those sworn complaints in analyzing the the question the substantive questions that are to shoot or do you contend that we as an initial matter ought to be the st ones to do to judge when question before you get to discovery i'm happy to talk about the discovery as you will but in essence they're there are two options and the judge when proposed the nd option that i issued mentioned earlier which was a finding that the district court substantively erred in granting summary judgment the former option the st option that i suggested and that you initially agreed would have been a reman based on the procedural error that the district court ignored the relevant portions of the record did not consider those verified complaints and that procedural error under our case law like great versus laws tells us that that procedural mistake is sufficient to vacate and remain and without reaching the substantive question of whether these particular amended these particular we can do that having that is that what we're doing simply say summary judgment is not appropriate don't have to get into the whole basis send it back and then the trial judge then will then move to the next procedural step which would be to analyze it in determining the disputed facts which i'm comfortable with doing that either way but i think i don't think there's a big difference in in the proposal even though they are two different ways in which to actually procedurally sit back as i understand her is correct that you are also asserting that mr goodman was entitled to discovery before summary judgment was entered additionally unfortunately i do not have an answer on mr goodman from that well he filed to verify complaints and amended a nd complaint your honor and normally it well if she gets if she's right if you're following there from the george down it seems as though you are saying that we are left with the last option and that is to look at those very complaints and determine if the evidence if they do create disputed issues of fact is that where you're going with this well know what i when i was saying was that the court considers consider the opposition as if even if it were sworn and so i think that if i understand that aspect of it in other words that we are now you're saying the judge did consider those very complaints about understand your rights and the judge determine that they did not create an issue of dispute it so the issue on appeal is did they can they in fact create an issue failed to challenge the court's facts presented by the defendant right through truce or declaration to correct but the the point is if we consider the st two he did challenge just the core facts based on the storm declarations i mean the point there it seems to me is that he's saying the opposition wouldn't be enough but he's not saying that the two original complaints would not be enough he's not considering those complaints at all you didn't even confront in your breaks you haven't mentioned that at all if anything that you've written the people of this court and so i'm wondering why you didn't do that and even if you if i wanted to answer that can i go back to the judge wins point in just a minute you started to make an argument based on young versus city of mount ranier which i take it to be the superseding of the original  rendering no legal effect argument can you tell me where in your brief you made that argument or any semblance of that argument i mean i understand the argument i don't think it prevails but i want to know whether  everybody agrees that the opposition was not sworn so that that's just like it's a false argument right because you're saying well it's oppositional it's what that's funny but we're not talking about the opposition we're talking about the st two complaint right  that's their argument and the implication of your argument everything you say in your brief depends on the idea that those two complaints should not be considered i get that that's implicit in what you're saying but what i don't see in your brief is anywhere where you actually argue that the st two complaints should not have been considered by the district court you fail to support the district court's decision in that affidavits the nurses report and and it's clear even from the defendant's own pleadings that he refused to cooperate with the op with the deputies it mit's that and that he got to fire the deputies he admits that also so under those beat him for no reason he is a very fine complaints also admit that he when he was told to go to the cell he refused to back down and threw himself on the floor and then he was uncooperative so that's what they verified i believe i did not say he threw himself of dispute in light of the details undisputed facts that were provided by the athletes appears my time is not by for the reasons of medical treatment you don't know his side of what happened you didn't know only noticed side of the officers view the video and just say well just let it be an override it knowing that if that that there are instances in which something like this if it did go to a jury could be it at st importance i have felt that it is under that circumstance that there well could be that if you chose to do something like that it really doesn't look good sworn under penalty of perjury and based on personal knowledge once these sworn complaints are considered they demonstrate several facts that conflict with defendant's account of events and would allow the jury to reasonably conclude the defendant's drag and beat mr goodman to punish harm or embarrass him rather than to maintain order or discipline after the incident defendant even left mr goodman on the floor where he was later found lying in a pool of darkened encrusted blood which is confirm by the jail nurses report on j one hundred and fifty six this is all cause multiple injuries lacerating his head and causing severe neck back shoulder and hands pain additionally mr goodman is verified complains do not state that he threw himself on the floor his original sworn complaint states quote notes with an asterisk i did not resist i simply relaxed laid flat and was dragged across a concrete floor into the holding cell additionally he noted that he is or should that be considered a must that be considered in evaluating the appropriate degree of force that could be used by operators in response to whatever action she took your honor the defendant continued their abuse even after mr goodman informed them of his spinal cord complication and injuries they were aware of mr disability however they continue to continue using a intent and why i guess what i understand that's what you want to say but i'm just i'm curious why what extent does it you know if you have an actual plaintiff sometimes we say that doesn't matter in other instances we say you know the nature of the individual additionally mr goodman did request that that video be preserved which is also confirmed in the deal nurse's report do you know when it is separate from the report of the nurse do you know when the in the process or how long after this incident he made any sort of it ministre his complaint november a complaint made by your client included as part of the record yes your honor to be back in this report is a part of