four which claims deliberate indifference to his medical condition mr harper yes your honor our time is short so let me ask you our principal my principal quest yes which is what is the bearing on this appeal of our decision in werner against wall two months ago we dealt with the wisconsin version of get practice and we held that as a matter of law the defendants are entitled to qualify community so why isn't that equally applicable to the illinois are my understanding of that case if it's a different issue well doesn't that dealt with wisconsin but both illinois and wisconsin have policies under which people are kept in custody checks offenders are kept in custody until they can find a lawful living arrangement yes we held that the defense is entitled to qualified immunity in wisconsin why isn't that why are people in title district court what it does here is that the state of illinois granting parole before the determination has been made about whether or not parole should have been ordered in the first place you know that's just the state the way in which the state carries out its policy it grants parole and then it revokes it before the guy gets out why does that change the analysis under federal law well for a number of reasons but first your honor if it does not comply with the requirements of that morsi to grow to make the inmate a parolee and then revoke and then leave the decision to revoke parole in the hands appendix page twenty eight paragraph thirty four he pleads that he did read the allegation and he observed that they were false and so he did have a valid  second type he actually had a valid post like the first time around but were purposely not challenging the first attention because at that point there is some reasonable argument that could be made that the state was not on notice because it didn't it did not have t benefit at that time of the order from the parole board that he was not a parole violators and so we skip over those ninety five days of detention we focus on the four hundred fifty two days of the tension that result from the second accusation have an address that he gave and said this is the second time around i don't know what was actually given to the parole board i know there were conversations with the parole board officer and mr brown i know they discussed that  it appeared not to be an issue at the time and when the order came down regarding the the housing issue even then it appeared not to be an issue for the parole board because he was found not to be in violation of the terms was parole and i would assume if that actually was a term and condition of parole program would have said this is a violation you are violated but you can cure the violation  submitting a proper host site address and that's not what happened what happened is the probe ward made the ruling but he's not a violator and then it made a notation that it was waiting for the host  second violation of parole but your honor also if the state of illinois actually sincerely thought that that that that was a violation of parole they never would have lodged the second accusation they would have simply said the parole board has made the determination if that so existed the paroled words made the determination that you're not in compliance and so nothing else needs to be done but the state did not handle the matter that way and instead the day that the issued its order that's when the state of illinois lodged its second accusation raising the exact same claims that he was in violation of his parole for not having a whole site not signing the agreement and b in the end not signing the right here on the right hand corner and the little box it says special water and there is a provision here where someone put have checked whether or not electronic monitoring was not required and this box brief and the the second detention occurred there was no warrant the parole allegation itself is not signed where it should be signed it's time where there's a space for the name of the person who hands the document to mr brown but it's not signed where there is a space for the name of the person who brings the allegation and i don't see how errors in filling in for us support here's why your honor because one of the issues is whether or not the state acted reasonably whether or not the state believe there's no general federal requirement that states have to act reasonably we're dealing with questions of law and i can understand the argument if it was made properly in the district court that if your client contended that he fulfilled all the requirements of release and was kept in prison anyway without even an opportunity to contest whether it would feel well the requirements there is a due process problem yes that i understand but he doesn't have anything to do with whether forms were signed in the right place you want to raise that point because it goes to the qualified doesn't have anything to do with state regulations either but goes to the policy that immunity issue and it also goes to whether he was there was reasonable suspicion not to call the qualified immunity issue under federal law is whether the law was clearly established in your client's favor it's not whether state regulations were followed were all forms w signed qualified immunity has to do with the clarity of the federal legal rule and nothing else well your honor at that at the point that mr graham was the tane the rule was clear and it was announced by the supreme court in the morsy holder you know that then if you don't want to be telling us that where never was wrong because when are held that there is one fight in unity right you may be saying that your client's position is distinctive because your client says he was really well i don't i certainly don't want to be argued werner but it but it is a different case because it's based on a statute that's worded differently it's based on facts that are different because mr brown did it he did contest whether or not there was a valid post site in the district court and he in fact at the time had a valid post site but again our the violation that we're complaining about is not that he was held even though he had a valid host site because the host it in werner i don't believe there was a determination by whatever state body is in charge of adjudicating croatia's i don't believe there was a determination about whether or not a pro violation did or did not occur and we have that here here the illinois prison review board which is the body in charge of making that determination it made a decision that mr brown was not in violation of the terms of his parole i asked the court again to consider the order at our appendix page number forty five it says he is found not to be a violator now that this is the state body in illinois that is it intrusted with this duty and they've made this determination whatever else no i'm maybe where we're not communicating is it your content forget about what the state said is it your contention that substantively your client met the requirements for release because he had a lawful living place he signed all the consensus you needed to sign and so on yes ok yes he did right he absolutely did yes that's that's the question not what some state actor said he did i see my red light is on but if there are no other questions i have three minutes or so for abo counsel suggested that he did have a cite he did you sign an agreement but there is nothing in the complaint that alleges that what he alleges and what counsel pointed to was paragraph thirty four which is an appendix page twenty eight and all it says is he was speaking to a plaintiff which you know we don't follow fact pleading rules we have a claim pleading rules what would be more important to me is whether he ever argued in the district court that he was substantively in total to release did he argue that not on the ground that he had a post site and that he had signed the electronic monitoring  of course the reason for having hearing such as morris he said used to track down facts like this exactly it sounds like at least the allegation of this case is that the illinois has in place a system murdoch explained exactly how this how the system was working and what happened was as i look at his complaint what i see is that his his i'm leaving way way way way way way murdoch i understand was settled we don't have a  meeting with your bare after the after the second and we're only talking about the second it's about the meeting with her was as i read it anyway the meeting with her was the preliminary morrisey hearing right and that she he says or the peer the prisoner review board says you are entitled to your release but as murdoch explains there's that's not the end of the story illinois has a bifurcated system that does not allow the department to release somebody who has not complied with the conditions that the board set and one of those there are two conditions here and i think there's no disagreement about that the complaint alleges that one is that he did not comply with the electronic monitoring and the other is that he didn't have a host site the prisoner review have the host site and ellen knowing the judge partment of corrections is not allowed to release somebody under illinois law he doesn't have a host site so we're garbus of the p r b his decision that yes you have been violated that doesn't mean that he's entitled to rel illinois law and thus the department had reasonable suspicion and consequently probable cause to keep him here until he's satisfied those conditions and that's the question did what the departments do you know in both issuing what what we're calling the parole violation report but in fact was a notice that we can't release you because you haven't complied with the conditions you know that that is that twenty eight which is the one the council cited what he told mr barrett was brown read the report this probation report noted that it contained false statements and refused to sign it that's it so what is the false statement i don't know i mean read this to say that the department employees you know that mr barrett did not have reasonable suspicion to keep or now with regards to the other two defendants the warden chandler and the director you know  these two defendants knew or should have know that they have ultimate responsibility well that's responded out superior that's not a basis for that section one thousand nine hundred three liability and i would be in any event i would be perfectly happy to join judge easterbrook and say that lerner it gives us qualified immunity here so so with regard to at least the detention and seizure questions i think it's you know the certainly the dismissal of the of the needs to be affirmed i mean it seems quite straightforward here to me with regard to the eighth amendment claim we didn't really have a chance to talk too much about that yet and this is only against chandler and what it's based on apparently is the chief starts with a two thousand and seven comment that she said to him i don't believe you you know i you you are faking it well this is in two thousand and seven and right after that he was sent home from the hospital so warden chandler was not alone in thinking that there was nothing wrong with him the in fact wouldn't chandler signed it or one of her just signees signed it so again this is the kind of responding out superior claim that just doesn't go anywhere and then and then the other the only other thing is that is her comments that are sorry dr carter's comments that he believed this is the allegation that he believes that that the plaintiffs should be in the health care unit this is on cage thirty one this is paragraph forty five of the complaint dr carter told plaintiffs that he believed plaintiffs should be reassigned but defended in chandler was against it well if anything what this is is an eighth amendment violation by dr carter who is simply perhaps implying well i would do it but i'm taking into account non medical reasons that is doctor chandler's opposition and under petty's and all the case law that you know taking non medical reasons to make medical just you know to make treatment decisions would be a violation of the eighth amendment certainly jack warden chandler's disagreement about where the plaintiff should be when there is no medical treatment plan for him to be in the health care unit is not an eighth amendment violation so unless the court has any questions we believe that this court should affirm the of the plaintiff's seizure claim against us should bear on his detention claims against randall and chandler and his eighth amendment claim against chandler because he failed to plead a plausible claim for any of them and at the very distinction between being a parolee or not a parolee is a semantic matter i don't see that in any supreme court holding and i don't see that in any holding of this court that once and inmate once a prisoner has become a parolee that that's simply semantics i don't see that in any opinion from any court what i do see is that morsi holds that when a president is determined to be a parolee than a conditional liberty interest applies that's the supreme court's holding that's the law and what the state of illinois has done here is they've set up a mechanism that does not follow that law because it allows an administrator singlehandedly to decide i am not satisfied that the parolee has a host site and so even though he is a parolee entitled he has a conditional liberty interest and he's entitled to to hear was a pool a preliminary hearing to determine if there's probable cause to hold him for the plan to return to probable cause to believe that he may have violated the terms of his parole and then an actual plenary hearing to determine whether or not prolife been violated that's what the law requires that was not done here and the state be department of corrections knew that was not going to take place yes you're i didn't mean to interrupt oh oh so the department knew that was not going to take place because they had been notified by the prison review board and because they had the benefit of the second parole order i think that the setting which is this case from werner this is not semantic i take it back to board order acceptance it's just one line those are false that one sentence that's false mr brown looked at it he saw he would get worse as offense this is false it's false but he failed to provide a whole cite if all you're relying on is the fact that the parole board the first time said no violation and there's no independent proof substitute plea eligible for relief i think you've got only half a case your honor if then there was no evidence introduced in the district court so in terms of us looking at a record to try to interpretate what interpret what that meant it's a problem when you write a we never reply and you're saying no because you weren't on summary judgment so you didn't need to do that so you didn't think you needed to allege that in the complaint the specific address or the fact that he was willing to sign an order correct and if yes because this was on a motion to dismiss if the state thought that that was an issue they should have raised that as an affirmative defense triple bypass while he was in the department of corrections he has housing was changed to the health care unit that's the hospital and he were maimed if he had he had arterial stent surgery after that in two thousand and eight but after the second that the first parole violation was lodged his and he was brought back to the correctional facility in two thousand and nine this housing was changed and he was sent from the hospital at the a that's in deliberate that shows deliberate indifference to is a medical condition apparently one of his one or more of his doctors thought he needed to be in the health care unit and that's why he was housed there following his triple bypass the fact that once he was returned to the prison and he was in general population his doctor said i believe he should be back in the hospital but warden chandler was against it it's true that's not a medical finding but it's the opinion of his doctor and it says just that if not for the warden being against it or certainly implies that if not for the warden being against that he would be moved back to the hospital and i assert to the court that's all the cleat and has to do