morning may please the court represent the talent in the plaintiff in this case mr figs and i think that like to start by pointing out a couple undisputed facts in this case which i really think  illustrate what a what an injustice has been done the first undisputed fact is that plaintiff's lawful release date was january sixteenth two thousand and eleven the second is that he wasn't released from prison until june twenty eighth two thousand and twelve more than a year and a half after he was supposed to prison this was undisputedly due to a sentence miscalculation and miscalculation that mr figgs identified and grieved there's no dispute about that and therefore there's no dispute in this record acknowledged this that the defendants were aware of the risk the serious risk that he was being held violation and what is the deliberate indifference here by this clarification or whatever we're screwed up about well the that as the court is well aware the deliberate indifference standard begins with knowledge of a preventive preventable risk in the district court agreed that there was knowledge of preventable risk in this case both defendants were aware of of the risk that mr face was being held beyond this out date and then secondly the refusal to do anything however trivial it is undisputed that the defense did not even attempt to recalculate mr fix sentence a summary judgment motion against his papers petition he did he pressed his case pro se survived summary judgment the day after he survived summary judgment they recalculated sentence for the first time released on the following day that is something however trivial that is the standard for deliberate indifference it took a matter of minutes to recalculate his sentence and let him out and the state defendants waited until after they knew they were facing a trial on his papers petition to even take that trivial everything they need to know what the problem is he's explaining to them why his sentences miscalculated in a very sophisticated way and they way that ended up getting him past summary judgment in the circuit court of logan county but not only did they ignore that but they did so actively they took several deliberate steps to deny him process they withheld his grievance explicitly and they and ultimately to deny him his freedom with ms to show up the defendant in this case can you be more p he said that he had never actually been released and therefore could not have violated his minatory supervised release which is true yes yes now and and why did and what was the risk so he told he told dawson  quickly and he testified that maybe he would have considered an emergency if the out date was the next day but since that it wasn't until two thousand and thirteen he thought it was an emergency of course mr biggs was telling him the update was nine months ago so he's essentially saying that because i didn't believe him it wasn't an emergency then now you're saying dawson did not and he did he didn't i didn't believe that  he believed that he was that he was that he had been a mandatory supervisor he didn't even look into it to that degree i don't think your honor he believed that the sentence calculation were cheap which had been filled out by somebody to a different facility so it is out the saying is wrong he just looks at it confirms it says what mr figgs says that it does and says that's enough secondly not only does he say it's not an emergency but when it comes back up on a regular grievance review the response is to withhold the grievance until petition is resolved until the motion to dismiss at that point and later summary judgment as a result he is being sued and it may be s case and rather than looking into whether or not mr fix is right and this is wrong he says well let's wait and see whether or not we can survive he is petition and the day after he loses summary judgment and not the summary judgment motion by mr fix but when fi fails to succeed on his summary judgment motion the very next day mr figure sentence is finally recalculated admittedly for the very first time since he started complaining about it and he's released the following day this is a man who spent over five hundred days in prison without lawful justification because no one is willing to go recalculate his sentence and no one is willing to ask any questions to follow up on the thing that mr fix is telling them this is clearly an instance where prison officials are not willing to believe grievances from prisoners and that's not their their opposite option they have to give credence to these how many how many prisoners are there in the prison it i did i believe there were over a thousand that i don't recall exactly at this point well if they're always just over a thousand how can that happen the warden be i would submit that when somebody is potentially being held in prison more than ten months after their out date that is an emergency and mr dawson should know that and this is not something that happens infrequently there's testimony in this case that this happens relatively frequently in the illinois department of corrections and they knew that but moreover mr dawson at least has the responsibility of making sure that his staff does look into it and he didn't what he did was made sure that the staff went and looked at the calculation that mr fix was complaining about and confirmed that it in fact said what so mr figgs says the calculation is wong and mr dawson responses did anyone check the calculation oh it says what he says it is well that's good enough that's not doing your job someone needs to go and see whether the calculation was done ifference for two reasons the first is negligence requires only knew or should have known of the risk and i'm just going to finish answering a question here like to reserve time for a bottle but deliberate indifference or recklessness requires knowledge of preventable respects the first prong and there's no dispute that there was knowledge of the preventable risk the district court acknowledged there was knowledge and preventable risk this isn't a should've known situation they knew they were on active notice actual knowledge of potential risk knowledge or rish there's always potential knowledge of preventable risk is the standard for deliberate indifference and there was there was an acknowledgement by the district court that that was present here so then it goes to the second wrong rather than doing my job and looking to see if he's right about that as i am the only person in possession of his master file which tell me the information necessary to see whether that's true i'll send these three pieces of paper to springfield and ask them if this calculation is done correctly she did that and she says that's enough the reason we know that's not enough is first of all because she didn't give them what they needed to see whether he was telling the truth secondly because the the the grievance was explicitly withheld if they thought they were doing everything they needed to do what is withholding agreements mean it means that they were holding off on doing the one thing they needed to do which they did the day that the summary judgment decision came down and it took them no time at all he was released the next day that's what they should have done from the beginning he say she failed to provide full full information what that you withhold when she sent as well the reason mr figgs was complaining that he had not violated his mandatory supervised release your honor that he was actually in prison at the time when he supposedly committed this other crime she had his master file which had all the information show that that was in fact true and in fact she referenced that information in her affidavit in support of a summary judgment motion so she knew of this information but that was only in his master file which is only at the facility springfield doesn't have that information all she sent them was the made a miss and the p r b order and that was it and that is it was there's nothing wrong with her wanted to double check honor this is a case where everybody says i don't need to do anything more than what i did i checked the piece of paper that said what it said i'm done and that's what this record is upholding that's a terrible view of the diluted deliberate indifference standard it leaves state officials in a situation where as long as they pass on somebody else's desk then then then that's that's all we have to worry about and that's not good enough when we're talking about depriving people of their freedom for over a year with no reason and we're all paying for this man to spend a year and a half in prison beyond his out date because nobody's willing to make a phone call or look at a piece of paper that  refused to do anything about that simply was not the case here when mr dawson submitted and corey's concerns about his looked into the sentence she looked at that the relevant documents the sentencing order as well as the prison review board order and determined that the calculation was correct what plaintiff is suggesting is that she should have initiated a new calculation but there was no basis for her to do so based on the sentencing the corrected metamath the sentencing order and the prisoner review board order that had declared mr figgs a parole violator of his mandatory supervised release the sentence appeared correct to her same documents she determined that the sentence calculation appeared correct if miss wallace had wanted to look at additional that document she testified herself that she would have requested them but based on those binding orders the sentence calculation appear should have disregarded the prisoner review board order or somehow determine that it was incorrect and then and then calculated the sentence based only on the corrected minimum that is not something that she had that for as a matter of fact that's not something that she was aware of his his complaints at least with respect to his grievance and even as he b s petition and his own inquiry to the chief records office where that he never had a  hearing and he never violated mandatory supervised release but there was a prison review board order in his file that indicated that he had had a hearing and and not only did fishel respond to his inquiries with that he marked it as an emergency so it went to dawson who testified that he looked at it he contacted for shell to determine if the sentence if this the release date was correct having already gone through that reviewed the review decree events and he indicated a grievance officer indicated on the grievance that that that that it was he had consulted with the chief records office as well as the legal department and count the sentence calculation was correct based on the corrected minimus and the prisoner review board order but since litigation was already pending in the circuit court and mr fixes he is petition the decision was made to stay but it had been investigated it's not that there was no investigation into whether the sentence calculation was cracked it just wasn't it just was held it was just a springer field doesn't have the records showing that he had been rather tours through and they didn't have the entire master file they didn't have the entire master file they had the documents that mr shaw had sent to them and could have requested any additional document but that prison review board order indicated that he that he had violated his mandatory supervised release well how did they how did the government learn that he hadn't been a mandatory r fact investigated so under these facts dothan also was not deliberately indifferent to their risk stipple plaintiffs continued incarceration claim also relates to the holding of the grievance but that mr frank had procedural procedural avenues there were pretty there worst state processes in place in order for his grievance was already investigated at this point but it begs the question of what does it mean to withhold the grievance if everything had been done what does it mean that the grievance is being withheld what it means is everything hadn't been done but two reasons why i would say no your honor the first is that the order doesn't say that the order doesn't say that it is mandatory supervised release was revoked the box is not checked it says he violated is that's all it says you know but that implies that he was on mandatory to sure it does but read these and orders with any kind of a keen eye she knew what they meant and she knew what they didn't say it didn't require vacation in the p r b order to see that this mr figgs was paying help without justification and by the way the p r b order was bay created after a call from records officers the p r b doesn't just go around reviewing its twenty year old orders and making deciding that they got it wrong they did that because someone from records called them and said it's wrong and missed that was mis fishel as job and that's admitted in the record that it was her job to do that if she could tell something was wrong she was supposed to call them and she could have had she done her job the first time but she didn't until a year and a half later mr morality is making the sentencing order consecutive to the drug case is that a mistake or is that consecutive she can do is call and ask for clarification a phone call that's what happened on june twenty seventh and that's what everyone refused to do until june twenty seventh that phone call cleared the whole thing up very quickly and he was released immediately that's all we were asking to be done in the first place