that's that's off the table right right exactly ok so the missile in place are qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that what plaintiffs appellate more told them put them  notice as soon excessive risk to more safety i can't tell in reading this whether you're chit whether you're disputing his account that he told the prison officials over fifty times that he was subject to threats and violence or whether you're contending that even if he told them that that what he said was not enough right well for the purpose of the of this appeal we cannot contest that question is did he are you conceding as you must be an appellant that he told them what he says he told them yes yes i'm conceding that so you're saying that what he says he told them wasn't enough right exactly what he told them was not enough and how could that possibly be true when he told them that he was threatened by these gang members he stabbed in the eye he's beaten up a couple different times what on earth was he supposed to tell them an inmate number  that he saved a correction officers life and then as a result one of the one of the prison gangs the latin counts put a hit on his life now from between ninety five and two thousand more claims that he was attacked twice as a result of this of this earlier incident but between two thousand and two thousand and ten there were no incidents as moore was moved from facility to from one facility to another and transferred from ionia michigan which is south western michigan all the way up to marquette which is in the upper peninsula almost four hundred miles away and when he when he got to mark had he sat down with the security classification committee they talk with him and for the purposes of this motion while conceding that he he requested protection that now they have a issue you're because because during that during that period of time more ways he became a block rep which means that he was holding himself out as representing various prisoners he was interacting with a lot of other prisoners he was speaking with he claimed he was speaking within the misto on a weekly basis and making these requests but during that during that period of time misto had this information he looked at it in heat and he concluded you know  more is doing he's up here he's doing well you know he seems to be he's in he's in a position where he's he is a black rapper p is not demonstrating that he's actually fearing for was not tied to the latin counts now more claims that it was hard to latin counts but then but based upon the but based upon the documentation that that is that is available that during that fight was he says this incident was lying counts and he says this was tied this was tied to the earlier attack now the sheet that there is that there is a prison fight investigation report and that sheet says based upon the officers investigation does this appear to be tied to different gangs though he so he says that he is attacked because he provided information about a possible hit the prison officials do an investigation they prepare their own report that says something else so you'd just simply say well there's no basis for what he says because we did an investigation you can't do that what qualified immunity appeal w  it was more of a prison fight rather than an attempt on his life because the previously previously were the attempts some more slight as he claims solved a razor and then later on the the this report that you're talking about relative to the fight in the kitchen correct includes moore's belief that's documented in the report that he thought he was targeted by the gang because he had read it somebody out it said he said this was related to him helping out an officer ok and then one month later he's attacked again right one month later he's a hero so there's no temporal problem here and then one month and you guys do nothing and then one month later he's he's attacked again but the the nature of this of the march attack where it was it seemed to be the way the report reads i a flight that was broken up and there was no evidence of any sort when he sort of any sort of towards any sort of dangerous weapons of all and i think that's and i think in the prison cont members and from the prison from the prison guards perspective from the defense perspective if this could be to them as a reason for them to conclude that this was an isolated incident not otherwise related the things that had transpired put them on notice that they should have they should have done something and in the law it was not clearly established that that that the plaintiff was facing excessive risk be in order for them to be devoid of unity that they need to have happen on notice that they are what they were doing violated clearly established constitutional law right right and circuit and also also the nature of the request and the nature of the harm that they knew that the prisoner was exposed to that did not rise to the level of  f of us of a situation where that where they were where they should have known where they knew that that the plaintiff was facing that and excessive risk when looking at the end vest a good report your fellow counsel was referring us to and under reasons and circumstances leading to the incident davis who's the perpetrator of the fight in the kitchen critical words that were probably davis says it was just a fight he wouldn't give any information but then moore who's your client moore said he did not know why davis came after so do you does your client that was connected to his efforts to assist a prison guard and they tell what it says says more gave information that there was a possible hit on an officer this could be the reason why davis went after but but this says that more your client said he didn't know why davis court a little bit counsel referred to a roughly ten year period where there weren't any serious physical assaults on michael and that is true what led to this escalating violence beginning in two thousand and ten was an incident in april of april of two thousand and ten in june of couple months later is when the first very serious assault with a razor blade across the man's your face and neck occurred he is immediately transferred to within a few weeks is transferred to the market brace prison where the two defendants who were arguing about today said on of the security course vision committee at the market branch prison my client is sitting there in this meeting with the decide where he'll be  housed and it will be provided with protective custody here's a bandage wrapped around his face he's telling these defendants what happened a few months ago he's telling his defense what happened he's telling these defendants that he's in need of protection and these defendants do nothing they disregard h claims and counsel points out that there is a rough we nine month period between june of two thousand july of two thousand and ten and march of two thousand and eleven where the next assault takes place and i would contend that simply this prison gang taking the little bit of time to understand where the person has been transferred where my client's been transferred how they're going to get a another inmate in their control to come after him and so it takes a few months for them to find out where he is series of attacks and the fact that he's been in fear of his life for many years resulting from his meritorious acts and help helping the michigan department of corrections and they do nothing and i would also highlight that between the march two thousand and eleven attack and the april twenty four attack deposition testimony indicates that he's speaking with misto one of the defendants here on a weekly basis see what's going on with his request to be put in protective custody and  that we're not going to deal with that you've got a parole hearing coming up you're going to get out of here soon enough the risk of you being killed over the next several weeks or months we're ready to live with that it's ok you'll be gone soon and just hang in there and so  his brief alleging that my client never made a written request for protection and that's simply not true he says so it's deposition testimony it's in the record these people in the midst place were for the purposes of   rates prison was never produced in discovery i would contend because the government had never produced it and to support the idea that that written request was made there is a letter in the record that my client went to central and wrote to central to get involved and that was that central administrative response with a letter to the warden at the market branch prison just forwarding the pointis letter on to the on site defendants say what you have to say about this mr warden why isn't anything being done is this true and this letter is sent to the prison officials on april eleventh two thousand and eleven on april twenty fourth is when the incident occurs where my client is attacked in a common area with a through the eye with a pencil will never see out of his right eye again and then he's subsequent beaten unconscious as this man attempts to end his life and so the court doesn't have any other questions i have plenty of time remaining you know the issue is here on appeal what can we attribute these defendants now which has given the work setting all the points allegation is true and as to these two defendants there's just no question that they were given written notice of his requests for protection subsequently given previously and subway given many oral requests for protection and  a is a prisoner who is alerting who were conceiving quiz alerting the prison officials as to his conditions but he never sat down in filled out this this request for protection in your in your first argument you said that the law wasn't clearly established in these facts because the information was vague that was the first now you're adding it's in your brief but now you're adding that it any didn't fill out a form so so what the law of the law would have to be clearly established that if you have a form and you don't fill it out then it's ok and ignore claims that somebodies life is in danger no and my point is that this form goes to didn't stop putting contention that that the the plaintiff has not demonstrated the law was clearly establish that what heat what the plaintiff did was enough and notably the district court below did not analyzing the clearly established the qualified immunity analysis what's a saying clearly is missing here in order for his request for protection to fall within what you would agree was clearly established law what should have done and who and how should he have done it and to whom should he have done it to be to fit within what the law currently says well i think in this particular case it's a written request based upon the that they already knew that right yes so the formed an editing there so what else was supposed to be in the form that he didn't communicate orally that would of provided the missing information the the  individuals as to whether or not the individuals that he believed would be able to get get him without basis for information just any other things that you know i'm hearing that the that somebody is attacking me these are people i'm talking to these are the people that that has given me the information these are the people i think are affiliated with the latin towns who may be out to get me all of this information that wind does the record show that the prison officials refused  requests for production because of the so called big nature of his complaints is that in the record in place the directors applications that they don't think they had and they don't think he gave them enough where would we look for that in the record that the problem here was inadequate the inadequacy of the basis of his request while the the it would be in the affidavits of the prison