rule twelve the six the district court faulted plaintiff's false arrest claim for omitting factual allegations of the facts and circumstances known to the defendant officers at the time  and we think this is an error of reasoning on the part of the district court because it is impossible for the plaintiff to plead what the defendant knew at the time he arrested plaintiff in this case the plaintiff pled that  cared for unwanted animals that he had brought two of the animals to the animal care and control facility which is the proper place because one was sick and one was aggressive that the administrator there called the police mistr and that he was arrested based on that pleading there is no way to conclude that probable cause because they rushed existed and we did kind of throw our hands in the air as the defense adjusted and asked what else can we please because it does not have any further information that he can plead about his arrest at this time the arrest report that the defense submitted in support of its will twelve motion co counsel the district court treated this as a pleading that effectively says i was arrested for acts the case was later dismissed or acquitted and therefore there is liability under the constitution do you think that's an adequate complaint given the difference between the probable cause standard for a rest and the reasonable doubt standard for conviction i think the way the course characterized it no i don't think that's what our complaint says our complaint describes the facts and circumstances that led to his rest with some amount of detail it's not to the detail the defense but like they asked us to put in their information about conversations the point of had but the fact is is the plaintiff is not in a position to say what the defendant's new i'm especially at the pleading stage the plaintiff is entitled i think blazer view is in a position to say what the facts are or to say for example whether well cared for dogs kill other dogs right the parties are in agreement that the dog inflated scared killed another dog right so that poses the question whether well cared for dogs to do that and therefore whether that shows cruelty to animals or lack of proper care well that's an interesting question on which the complaint is so far as i can see silent while and the stage of the proceeding now we're out on a roll twelve motion you know the issue is what did the defendants know at the time they know it's not what they know it's what the facts are and the question is whether the claim is plausible well you know there's something that seems to affect whether the claim is plausible if it turns out that well cared for dogs don't kill other dogs then the complaint is not forcible if it turns out that well cared for dogs do kill other dogs some a complaint might be plausible but we know nothing about those there are no allegations about  those i think the courts correct that if the facts turn out that way that it was the plaintiff's fault that one animal killed another animal and that he decided to turn it in because he wasn't going to be able to find a home well then i think that the courts are right that the entire trial transcript to cite to a doctor's testimony that this condition likely took longer than one week to develop but the fact is the dog was just sick that was the only thing wrong with it and it hadn't been eating so it was thin but this this again is not something the plaintiffs caused he took the dog to veterinarian he got at appropriate treatment and again at this stage of the proceeding i think the plaintiff's platting were a seizure and he's entitled to the presumption that that was on reasonable absent some plain existence or probable cause but he doesn't know what the police knew when they arrested him or why they even arrested him what he knows was he didn't commit a crime and he didn't do anything wrong and of course there are a lot of facts that would have been developed through discovery to show that such as the fact that the city of chicago regularly inspected his business and had found nothing wrong with the way that he was treating animals up until he brought two dogs to the animal care and control facility to surrender which is the appropriate thing to do with dogs that you can't find a home for because he can't economically is my time like to skip that and just talk about the malicious prosecution claim because they're the district court rely on the arrest report to basically conclude that the facts point to pled wrong but that there's a problem with the judge's treatment of the merits of the state law claims because he said he was really pushing jurisdiction over them and allowing him dismissing them without prejudice to be pleading in state court so i don't know why he went on after saying that to discuss and decide the merits  and you know treat them as dismissed on the merits when he specifically said they were dismissed without prejudice to replating so it's not a merits dismiss described another way is that it was dismissed on the merits but i don't know how it can be based on the man dave heineman or the line in the last line in the opinion which is that these counts are dismissed without prejudice the court  exercise supplemental jurisdiction any further pleading by the plaintiff will have to be in state court and then there's an earlier passage in the opinion where he elaborates on that that he's relinquishing jurisdiction and deciding to dismiss without prejudice so i mean it's just a gratuitous all the discussion of the merits of the state law claims that's the case then it is gratuitous where is the district courts rule fifty you george  in response to this exchange i was going to try to look at the judgement to see if the judgement seems to be on the merits is missing from your appendix you're in violation of the circuit rule thirty b and your certificate under circuit rule thirty i'm not sure there is an independent judgment based on my review of the pleadings and studying for my future going to have to raise your voice so when i'm not sure that there is same as what the courts are asking for on the record in this case and my review pleading if the district judge didn't enter rule fifty a judge what are you appealing from all that the order dismissing the case then there is some separate document you can't appeal from an opinion right we went through this in the last i heard you can appeal from an opinion you can appeal from a judgment i think that in that in that court's opinion on the motion to dismiss it disposed of all of the claims and i think that is sufficient no it is not i would  says george when is entered in favor of defendants so it is a rule fifty eight judgment but defective did anybody go to the judge you no shame question i have for the last get we go to the judge and say look you really need to stay in the judgment what has happened in this case in no not not not that i'm aware of it and there was definitely an oddity in the opinion and we addressed this in our briefs that the judge treated the state law claims on the you know included the statement that the judge was going to relinquish your stiction but treated them on the merits plaintiff has never argued that those claims should be allowed to proceed in state court that the dismissal should be treated without prejudice so our position is that it should be treated as a dismissal on the merits and affirmed i think at a minimum you know at most this court could remain and to the to the district court to just you know decide what exactly it intended to do with w felt we have to accept what comes to us and what his kind of advice is the district judge saying i'm not exercising jurisdiction over the state law claims so whatever he said about the merits of those claims is irrelevant at this point what he said about his jurisdiction but  operative statement i think that we have right about that but the judgment itself just you know dismisses the action and doesn't refer to anything going on without prejudice and we believe that judgment should be affirmed as to the merits of what's primarily at issue here the federal false arrest claim but i think i go back to an exchange that judge easterbrook had the plaintiff's counsel earlier about whether you know the issue is what defendants knew or what the facts were  and i'd actually submit that because you know mr niet is claiming he was unlawfully arrested you know without probable cause probable cause does turn on the facts known to defendants at the time of the arrest the problem is that on that healthy but overly aggressive and had killed another dog and then the other was ill and the question is whether that those facts standing alone without more are sufficient for an arrest and you know that seems to me is enough to get to the next stage of the proceedings i says they aren't enough for probable cause maybe it's enough for reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigation but standing alone it doesn't supply probable cause to arrest well i'm not contending that that the fact the facts of what he alleged are the conditions of the dog what that is that's all there that's all there was that's what the arrest was based on the condition of the dogs because that's so far as we know from the complaint all the defendants had to go on the problem with looking at that way is that that plaintiff did not allege anything about what information was provided to the defendants about the dogs and so he you know he says this was this these were the facts with the di he doesn't need to anything more than that to lead to false arrest claim if but he did what he doesn't know if this is not a case like the behavior of us versus who cal case where somebody is arrested without any questioning if he had alleged that you know this is the condition of the dogs i walked in and i was arrested without any questioning about how the dogs came in to be this condition that would be one thing but instead of pleading anything about what the defendants were told what information he provided he just said in the negative then it's very hard to see that there is probable cause if the answer is no then it looks like there is probable cause one might think that normally a complaint would be construed in favor of the plaintiffs so that one would say that the that's correct i mean the inferences to be drawn from you know the fact that you brought in a dog that killed another dog and a dog right in the complaint alleges that that's what happened but that's the sequence that's that's correct but as far as what information the defendants were acting on the complaint says nothing about what the defendants were told and oh yes he was arrested on the spot based on the condition of the docs it's as if that's insufficient seems to be conspicuously silent about what you know him from what what the officers would have been told if he actually alleges if he was saying in response to motions to dismiss and at this stage that that's what actually happened that he was arrested on the spot and there was no exchange and the defendants didn't have any other information about you know what what had happened that's very there's he says in paragraphs eighteen and nineteen of his amended complaint of the day of the second amended complaint y nothing he said or did that date when he turned in the dogs would know he indicate that he caused any injury on your music like no he does but if he's not saying he said or did nothing it's put in the negative arguing that what more could i have pled in this is a situation where he was there he know if and what information he provided to the defendants and in fact although the pleading standards are not they don't require detailed  favor that all the officer had and the animal control officer and the police officer had was the condition of the dogs and if you draw the inference in his favor that that's not enough for probable cause maybe reasonable suspicion to open investigation but not make an immediate arrest i would say that there the allegation that you know he did it nothing he did or said should actually be disregarded because it doesn't it's not an out it's not a he shows up at the animal control officers with two dogs so the condition of the dogs can be observed is their coat mean cheaper example or they obviously starving he says he gave an explanation about why they brought them in and he says what the explanation is he does not say that he provided any explanation he says nothing about what he said to the defense ok then if there's absolutely nothing in the complaint about that that is discussed in the br the only thing the officer it had to go on according to the complaint is the conditions of physical condition of the dogs and he says these dogs were in a remarkable physical condition why is that not an adequate pleading that there was no reason to arrest because he did the pleadings don't show that that is all the officers had to go on he says nothing about the pleading or wedges but that's all the officers had to go on pleading alleges i brought in these dogs the only thing the officers knew was the op was the dog's physical condition there was nothing remarkable about the physical condition and i was arrested i did the complaint does not fairly say that that is all the officers had to go on now you know as we mentioned in our brief there's because the case was tried you know and criminally and the plaintiff knows what happened at the trial in fact you know there was more that happened and i'm not and we'll find out all about that