when a prisoner himself becomes aware of a risk to his safety that those two things cannot be true at the same time the problem with the district court order in this case is that it implies that both of those things are true at the same defendants who knew different things about the risk that's all farley posed to james romer in prison with a district court has done is conflated each of the defendants gnowledge and determined based on a single conversation with one of the defendants that frankly in have itself does not an eighth amendment claim make as applied the facts of that conversation happened thousand and twelve he had a conversation with an officer in his unit earlier that much ten days before that in that conversation he said to officer boyer i don't want to live with pa for the anymore but unpacking that yet he had become relation with the elf no the boy or knew of the risk at that point well there's an interesting question your honor because i know i think the problem is they gets right to the heart of the matter you know two inmates didn't want to live together well he didn't just say i don't want to live with and then you communicate safety is the safety concern i don't want to live with this guy my life is in danger or their safety what more do you need to know full of limitations that does not have anything to do with what the defendant knew or whether roemer should have known and the date that the report how this is in the crew would that have anything to do is whether safety for my life and boy ignored my complaint right so as the boy are sure why isn't it there was something cruel at least as a boy or disregarding right now your argument about the other defend to this notion of the knowledge of well the mindset of every defendant this subject deliberate indifference of every defendant and that's because money appears to contemplate and that determining when the cause of action would gel such that a cr that does not form the basis for then the cool as it relates to that defendant does it if it was reasonable for the state to only have learned that information five years after mr roemer says and my answer to your question is ye mr roemer and that's that's the point that we're talking about and what authority would support that i gave you the five year hypothetical and you bought that hypothetical so explain to me what authority would support that well is the knowledge of the other the knowledge of mr roemer is the knowledge of the state the knowledge of the state is not the knowledge of mr roemer is it and that's why i'm asking me if i'm wrong give me some authority that supports the well i mean the understand that claim to prove i just your position is if i'm understanding it is in that ten day period or even prior to that conversation with office boy or that that mr person who can find out that information is the estate and even if previous state could have found it out sooner perhaps through some efforts on their own part it still would have been there would have been a time when this question because we're only after pretty much each of the defendants different time periods different action and i presume that that's why you're saying that we can't they can't all be lumped into one boat with the theory the accusations were different good morning to me please the court my name is going over from the colorado attorney general's office on the help of these defendants i recognize that this is a sympathetic case both because of the tragic underlying facts and because the statute of limitations by definition limitations period was two years it's also under spewed that none of the defendants allegedly unlawful actions took place within the two years prior to the plaintiff filing the lawsuit therefore this nine hundred eighty three claim was filed too late if if there if he had never had this card if this rumor had never had this conversation with mr boyer that beatrix your question and i'm not sure exactly what the answer is but it really doesn't matter for purposes of the statute of limitations all that he has to know is that he has been injured and that there is wrongful and that it was likely caused by wrongful conduct as that was what is the injury in this case i'm sorry what is the injury in this case the injury is being placed in contact with a dangerous with the question is and it seems to me it is relevant because i mean you could argue although apparently they are not arguing you could argue that through reasonable diligence within that ten day period of time mr roemer could have learn a reason responsible for that and that isn't what your argument has been that i think you've been relying entirely on the fact that he knew that he had there was a safety risk and that boyer was aware of it because he told him i don't i don't see any of your argument being that somehow it wasn't it was possible that in that pinay period he could have uncovered the various actions of the other the sentence and how they played into his set forth in order to state a cause of action in these cases in these clients you've got to state what the individual responsibility was that's exactly right but i think it's important to separate what you know what you need to be able to the limitation let me finish my my my answer to that which is we don't know exactly when that occurred but we know that it at least a crude by the time that he spoke to mr boyer about ten days before his murder he could have he could have have given information or reasonably learned that information prior to that time we don't we don't have facts or information about that but we know at least by the days when he had the conversation with mr boyer that he was aware both of the risks that he faced and that pr officials were unwilling to take steps to have a photo that they filed suit what would he have alleged which constitutes a nine hundred eighty three act and again i think it's important to separate his ability to a claim or prove his case entirely and be a crew all of the cause of action that triggers the start of the sets the limitations there are always additional things that need to be done in between when a cause of action accrues and when the claim is filed vasquez you had a group of four defendants who all acted at different periods of time all before the two years well before the two years of prior to when the case was filed and they and they treated and interacted in different yet when the court addressed it doesn't want to patients that as to them to group them together and concluded that the cause of action had accrued at the latest when the defendant was aware that he had been substantially harmed so the way that it was applied in vas then were what did he know about each of these defendants because he wants what did he know about each of these defendants as to their disregard of the substantial role to hear men it was different and it turns out as each of the other four to separate it out and just aggregators the defendant to make that determination and the point here is a two judge aristos point you put all your eggs in one basket the border basket in and if you're looking at that that at bottom fundamentally is wrong and if this court were to hold that mr roemer had to have specific knowledge about the subjective knowledge of each of the defendants before the claim would accrue then i think we would look ten days and that's doesn't seem to be what your argument and you're right it does not rest on what could he have done this and this because that obligation also the state also have that same obligation and again  i think it's important if you can mind that a cruel just means that the clock has started it's a starting point it's not a cutoff at this court seven alexander once a claim has accrued a plaintiff much use reasonable diligence in seeking to discover facts giving rise to a claim need to know the role of everyone involved at that point the statue of limitations has begun and he has been extended period of two years in which you get all the information necessary to to do the legal research to put together the complaint and ultimately  here is the risk of harm is the danger that was posed by being put in close proximity to mr farley who who is understandably a dangerous character and when mr omer spoke his mental health provider near the end of may two thousand and twelve indicated that he feared for his safety call his cellmate a murderer and then several days after that the site actually picked him up against the wall and threatened him and so when he went to speak to mr boyer on june third