with regard to the application of light to eighty three in the protection of federal constitutional rights in tennessee disciplinary proceedings it had two aspects the first aspect for any jews against the chief disciplinary council for the violation of clearly established fourteenth amendment and first member rocks the sec was against the disciplinary council for violations that were not necessarily clearly established at that time in her facial capacity and hearing her subsequent  nineteen sixty six united states supreme court clearly hill that in state disciplinary proceedings fourteenth amendment quasar criminal actions apply the two that it clearly held in that case were the right to pretrial modus and secondly the right to jeopardy once the proceedings begin as to prevent the men in this case both of those clearly established r me in tennessee's disciplinary hearings in middle sector nineteen eighty three the supreme court said that the state disciplinary council of state disciplinary proceeding were a pound a plate of constitutional federal protections given to juvenile delinquent state proceedings each of those rights given to juveniles in state them i did everything but stand on my head and take off my clothes and in the attempt to get them but on october the theft of two thousand and it gets away from you i'm getting o understand why mr monsignor continues to insist upon state and federal constitutional protections in these disciplinary proceedings they do not apply in tennessee under rule twelfth to the border professional responsibility say it that for ten or so you to recognize federal constitutional protected rights which would require a change in the tennessee ro in other words the tennessee rule is superior to the federal constitution then on december the fifth of two thousand and thirteen mr jones testified under now being said you don't having tried everything in the world to get to the city to recognize my federal constitutional rights that were clearly mollified and when i say clearly clearly violated i had a know words they took the proof and the like in my testimony and they changed it once they changed to do it with to the hearing panel in the hearing panel took the nurses who after hearing george's and trial but just with their counsel calling the hearing panel and giving them instructions as to what they did in the middle of the hearing and more importantly judges along the way of the drugging that brings me to you today have found all these things it's no secret i was to now had interference with the impartiality of the hearing panel by a circuit judge but the circuit judge said well your tourney did a good job that i was never charged with to begin with and i was punished forward now the question is really quite simple that i put to the spoke because nobody has ever addressed the question today does the federal constitution fourteenth the boom apply to the city's disciplinary proceedings or does it not such a simple question such a question that has if that's your position opposed these that were clearly established by supreme court precedent and that's one of the test of qualify the beauty has to be clearly established and secondly she did it deliberately charged with the duty to train these hearing poundings what if her decision was just negligent that she didn't know what the law was that she didn't deliberately and intentionally intend to violate your guts to show rights but she did it because she wasn't aware of what the law was my answer a question you didn't see and that is the district judge didn't grant her qualified to get the district judge granted her absolute immunity under a ginger case and i'm i'm going to ask you that question too ok and she entitled absolutely a bill it's going to go through a qualified immunity we never hear you know qualified immunity i just i plead i just want to know it was ition it opposition is the number one the district court did not apply a qualified immunity under a standard of summary judgment the district court applied qualified immunity under a motion to dismiss standard the complaint alleged all of the elements to take it out of qualified in other words the complaint negative that under its terms qualified immunity this court may send it back to the district court and say look at this from a qualified immunity position but the complaint pled out of it now certainly she can or it's just it's a it's it's it's one of those it's one of those orbiting meter odds but sometimes comes down and found its way into an opinion that has absolutely no basis in warning good morning your honour's i'm janet climb felter with the tennessee attorney general's office i'm here on behalf of mr jones in the state of tennessee your honor this is not a case about mr monsignors disciplinary proceeding that proceeding was finally concluded in front of the tennessee supreme court in june of two thousand and eleven a petition for search was with the united states supreme court and that petition was denied what this case is about is the lawsuit that mr against miss jones the former chief disciplinary counsel for the board of professional responsibility in her individual capacity for two million dollars in damages a million a compensatory a million in punitive and then against the state of tennessee for injunctive relief with respect to prospect of disciplinary proceedings in front of the board the complaint the a medic complaint was dismissed by the district court and there are two issues basically before this court today the first one is did the district court here in dismissing the amended complaint and the second issue is did the district court here in denying the motions to the post dismissal motions to file second and a complaints and the answer to both of those questions is no no error was committed by the district court with respect to the dismissal of the amended complaint your honour's we would point out that of course no answer was ever filed or no response to the motion to dismiss the amid a complaint was filed prior to the actual dismissal and the dismissal was based upon with respect to mr jones as judge griffin has noted was on the basis of absolute immunity under the general case that belief has not been established by this court this court certainly has never declared that the ruling its ruling in ginger has ever been overruled the other argument that the plaintiff makes with respect to gender not being applicable is simply that judge only applies to officials that are acting within their jurisdiction but if you look at the amended complaint and you look at the factual allegations not allegations that are disguised potentially a factual allegations or legal conclusions but the pure factual allegations as to what miss jones did it was clear that all she was doing was performing her duties as chief disciplinary counsel for the board that all of the duties alleged in the complaint were things that she only could have done in her capacity and they were clearly within her jurisdiction in fact she was performing duties on behalf of the tennessee supreme court duties that if the court had not delegated them to her the court itself would be performing those duties with respect to the disciplining of attorneys that are licensed to practice in tennessee and this court has held that those types of duties performing those types of duties are considered to be quayside judicial and entitled to absolute immunity now with respect to the state of tennessee the district court judge dismissed the claims against the state of tennessee because the state is not a proper person under one thousand nine hundred three now the response back is well and the district court relied upon of course that the seminal case of wills versus michigan now the response back to that dismissal is this will wait a minute the stay in their argument never raised will and the district court shouldn't have relied upon will on its own because i never had the opportunity to respond to an argument that will vs michigan is applicable and the first problem with that argument your honor is is well again never spawns was ever filed to the motion to dismiss so to argue  that he didn't have the opportunity to even raise the issue when he never filed a response is somewhat specious but more importantly wills is very clear that the state of tennessee is not a proper party now in response to that mr monsour has argued  was asking for perspective really i wasn't asking for any relief against the state of tennessee yes i named the state of tennessee as a party ballot merely asking for any relief against them my request for  was against ms jones and her official capacity and the district court address that first of all he noted that with respect to miss jones she's no longer the chief disciplinary council so with respect to asking for relief against her in her at the complaint alleges that there are complaints that have been filed with the board but there were no pending disciplinary actions in the me or fear that one of those complaints might result into a disciplinary action was not enough to establish a case or controversy sufficient to grant the declaratory relief that the plaintiff had requested much less to request and grant the injunctive relief because there was no expired actually in june of two thousand and twelve so at the time that the district court made its ruling in december of two thousand and twelve it had been expired for six months and there were no pending disciplinary actions before although this is not in the record but it is in his reply brief that of the four pending complaints at the time that mr months here filed his opening brief three of those no longer exist have been dismissed at this point there's only one complaint and again we are now however many months down the road and no disciplinary proceeding has been filed with respect to that one last complaint that is alleged  so for those reasons the district court clearly did not error in dismissing the amidah complaint and it was on those same grounds that the district court denied the motions to a man and as we noted the motions to a man were not found prior to dismissal they were filed after the district court had already dismissed the amended complaint and this court has held that in those instances there is a higher standard that has to be met beyond the provisions of rule fifteen in essence of what a plaintiff has to demonstrate is that a motion to a mint could survive the test under either will fifty nine or rule sixty and we would know that that actually both those motions were filed with the district court a rule fifty nine motion to alter me and and i will sixty motion for relief were both with a district court and were both denied the motion to a man was also denied on the basis of futility because all the second amended complaint did was as plaintiff stated it was to clarify the relief that was being sought against the state of tennessee unfortunately you didn't do that because if you look at the second and third paragraphs i mean the third official committed in her official capacities and in joint concert with other tennessee officials in administering tennessee attorney disciplinary proceedings and violations of provisions of the federal constitution the district court found that would be futile to allow the second amendment when all it was doing was once again a starting claims for relief against the state of tennessee and that even if you could construe it as a starting claims against ms jones in her official capacity which  it did not state that once again there were no allegations by stablish saying a present case or controversy sufficient to claim to grant that declaratory and injunctive relief now with respect to the the only thing that that amended complaint sought to do was substitute the current chief disciplinary counsel ms garrett for miss jones as the defendant again the court said it was futile to do that for the same reasons that it is not the second in the complaint and also pointed out that there were no allegations with respect to ms garrett as the current chief disciplinary counsel that would in any way establish the present case or controversy as well so for those reasons your honor  we respectfully submit that the district court was entirely correct in dismissing the i'm in the complaint as well as denying the motions to file the second amended complaint second and third amended complaints and would respectfully request that this court affirm that decision they continued at the time that i filed this action against mr jones i have four complaints still pending against me that i was going to have to go through under the signing processes without any federal constitutional protections because they said they didn't apply to me and in addition i had a monetary judgment placed against me for twenty two thousand five hundred dollars for a state disciplinary proceedings where any and i have been denied multiple federal constitutional protections that judgment still pending against me of which i'm still protesting by this action clearly  controversy as to whether or not those proceedings that resulted in that money to your judgment were conducted in bali should the federal constitution there's no other way to cut that piece of b e opponent argues that the term loosely supreme court approved by disciplined nothing could be further than the truth the reported opinions are that the tennessee supreme court said that i film for the purposes of argument that the gender case remains good law yes but where does that leave ms jones in terms of absolute immunity because let me just from damages yet it  good lol nancy jones walks about the injunctive relief now jones is not even the disciplinary council anymore as no we moved to him into substitute the correct disciplinary counsel who said the same thing she said so anyway jones would be out of that as well right jones herself own declaratory judgment and perspective injunctive relief jones would be out what she no longer had the authority to comply with the federal constitution and the judge the district certain pick to differ with her absent nancy jones in her individual capacity in the original complaint that is sufficient to bring her before the court for both the cle