class for us to fail to recognize a distinction between class actions that involve damages and class actions for which injunctive relief is the only relief given by the court where you have injunctive relief it's not about compensating past conduct it's about ensuring that there will be no wrongs in the future and past conduct is not relevant except to the extent it serves as proof of what the future of what future conduct maybe by the defendants and therefore unique defenses to actions taken by or unique defenses relating to the individual close representative really have no bearing on the nature of the of the claims or litigation that the class representative is going to put forth  just diverge from the chorus well no your honor because with any b to class particularly when you have claims that are inherently transitory there will be no relief that flows to the name threat of harm at the time of the filing of the litigation who raise claims that are typical of class members and otherwise satisfy the rule twenty three by rule twenty three criteria can service class represent is and what's i it's possible that mr monaco could represent non dangerous people but the standard reviews abuse of discretion wasn't an abuse of discretion for the district court certainly can your honor because he's in a position just on his own experience he can certainly talk about how he was given a very cursory evaluation so part of the i mean what  amano who can certainly testify to to the extent that he can testify to lay matters including the nature of the evaluation given to him might be able to testify to the nature of the evaluation but it's hard for me to see an abuse of discretion turman in that he's not typical of those who receive much more cursory evaluations who do not have the benefit of psychiatry just examining a cross ex examining him a hearing cross examination and two at the end of the day don't have a finding dangerousness well perhaps you would have a stronger case if you were correct that collateral denied the opportunity for of a full and fair opportunity for review the pelt division dismissed his appeal is moot did this record civil mr monocle the not move fast enough timely enough there is simply no way in the world he would win because counsel acted in a timely manner let me go back just one minute please to the decertification  a number of months if not years three months three months to come up with alternative classroom representative but none none was put forth i mean  so so he wasn't as i read the record unsympathetic to the class situation you obviously were given another lawyer for clients representative who didn't have these problems surface someone who may be coming up with who may have standing depending upon how the psyche accurate incumbency valuations valuations play out in the next two weeks so they are out there and they're out there but they're not in the effect but that doesn't i don't i think that's different from finding that when one is denied and opportunity for review then or what it's not that he's denied and understand new york law then this court's decision and watkins is it is a variance with new york may please the court set for kosky for the state at least this court should affirm the judgment below with respect to the state defendants for two reasons first the district court correctly granted summary judgment with respect to the individual defendants and second it acted well within its discretion when it certified the subclass like to begin with the claims against the individual defendants which are clearly barred by principles of collateral estoppel as the court noted under new york law there are only two requirements for collateral estoppel to apply the first is whether or not the issue was actually and necessarily decided in this case monaco actually conceded that below that's in the party's fifty six point one statement so that that's already been decided they said there's any dispute about that a close read about the facts of the hearing show  pollution hearing where a party never had an opportunity whatsoever to appeal which is which is not this case in this case he had an opportunity to appeal and he actually had an opportunity to apply to the appellate division to ask them to vacate the lower court's ruling that didn't the first is the collateral estoppel point which because he's asserting claims on behalf of individuals who are asserted to be non dangerous and the relevant claims that are left in this case all have to do with claims of their being wrongly found to be dangerous he's  particularly poor representative in this case because he himself was definitively found to be dangerous he just barred from contesting that but even if that weren't true just the judge livingston as you noted just the particular facts of this case even make him a particularly poor representative in this case because he's a paradigm example of why the claim why the types of procedures that he's challenging can arrive at a correct result he was given adequate process he was reviewed by five different psychiatry's that's more than typical in these circumstances  the issue of dangerousness was squarely presented it was fully vetted in front of a court he had an opportunity to challenge it for review this is an example of how the process works correctly and so his his own circumstances undermine to keep playing you know being asserted by the class and beyond that judge parker as you noted yourself they're standing issues an incentive problems as well at this point in the game that we're now twenty years past you know when these claims were initially brought there's no indication that he's ever going to be subject to this type of process again there's no a minute threat of harm and there wasn't even a threat of harm at the time that these claims were being asserted by the class at that time there was another name plaintiff in the case there was a law clinic that law clinic drove a lot inclined to ever reach those issues to really just apply it thank you  manic bipolar episode based on his observation at that time that he was extremely psychotic and then after mr monaco was was  i just bailed and then discharged to the eastern long island hospital where he remained for about a week where they monitor him around the clock and then when he returned to the suffolk county he again saw him three times but the first time he saw him after he returned to the jail he noted that his see he was greatly improved and also that the hospital had taken him off of the and that's when dr packard sort of believe maybe this may be schizophrenia not not bipolar mr monaco does not dispute  appeal should not have adverse legal consequences this is squarely a type of case that has adversely or consequences second i respectfully suggest that the process mr monocle went through was not particularly good because the entire process was essentially tainted by the national determinations in other words the certifications by the doctors were in his record the record what went into evidence the commitment hearing the expert if test the state's expert at the commitment hearing relied on the certifications to bolster her testimony so one problem fit into another and i respectfully would like to raise this type of this hypothetical to show why standing and there is a viable class if  the class representative simply die and disappear i think there is still no question that the supreme court would have found standing because the tourney had claims of other individuals and the  tourney could and was going to vigorously represent the claims of the class that's what happens when you have a b two class where there is an initially standing as the district court found in this case as to duck the package and the notion that he was not deliberately indifference because he believed mr monaco was greatly improved upon release he testified that that was initial of his impression but it became abundantly clear after meeting with him within minutes that he was not greatly improved he learned that he was sent back because he had thrown a chair it was still manifesting symptoms so when you look at all the facts i think a reasonable jury could recognize that or conclude that missed the package simply wanted there was little work as possible to not want to deal with the monocle wanted to wash his