indifference the district court judge should have granted qualified immunity to the officers taking into account the process here the officers did not violate a constitutional law and their actions were object from the general population as some testimony indicates sometimes there are bogus threats so in they can get off the general population because he owes a drug that debt and so on and so they use their discretion in investigating brief which is the officers that issue somehow did not have enough information to the value what the risk infraction as of course has already suggested in his questions to counsel that ignores the standard review that governs  qualified immunity he is a member as judge being pointed out of a special class of prisoners who are known to appellants to be particularly vulnerable to inmate on the inmate violence he has a history of sexual offenses he refused to reveal that  colleagues and he was specifically threatened on the basis of that in addition to that he was warned twice by specific inmates before the attack he was warned about five days before the attack to watch his back he reported that to the prison officials they disregarded it he was warned two days before the attack by and an inmate called merino a merino cellmate redmon that he better be out on the yard because they had something for him they put him or graphically on repeated in the actual quote he went the day before the attack to his instructor to his guidance counselor to attend and hold one of the defendants here and a captain more and he expressed we told them not only the threats but who would you say once were and why he was being threatened to this same facility where he was housed without any protection resegregation whatsoever from the two inmates which threatened him and indeed the next day who jumped him cut his head and broke his knuckles and when they did that captain moore as  eged by our client said you came to prison now you deal with it that was the one of the crux captain moore said in response to the appellants identification that he was going to get into trouble with these two inmates captain moore you came to present if you came to prison and now you deal with it he didn't take any initiative to talk to the people that talk to the inmates that there's just one identified as the same and they didn't put him in any kind of special housing they didn't even keep a close eye on him they sent him back to the population with frankly callous regard it's it's you know you're here you have to go deal with it now we know that's a reasonable because in their submissions to the district court the controlling his interactions with the assailants and they say that all that investigation is dependent upon learning from the victim who the salem's are and what the basis of the threat is they've got exactly that information here in the state doesn't agree that that's going to be proved up a trial and it very well may not be but this is an interlocutory appeal from qualified immunity the ability to say that those facts are not on the table doesn't exist at this point in the case for that reason the district court said let's go to trial and will submit on that is not about hindsight it's about if they acted attractively reasonable even though the inmate said that he told the officers everything their perception was that they didn't have enough information to move them that day but they had a plan they didn't ignore him