thank you your honor i may please support i would if left the court prefers otherwise i would like to get right to the heart of the matter which i believe really issue in the case there are some other issues related to the facts related to subject of deliberate indifference typically in the context of dealing with an emergency situation trying to get staff up there that was the st requirement to get back up to be able to get into the cell number eleven would not necessarily have resolved th mop everything up and while he was continuing then it began to beat around the cell with the plunger and also being it began to foam itself and began beating on the wall with that  shortly after that is when he sat at the desk part of the trail into front of the phone wrapped a cord around his neck mr law's testimony was he couldn't tell whether he was doing it effectively and effectively because you're sitting slumped over circumstances one thing that there is a couple of issues i think with arenas st calhoun in that regard because question that arenas left unanswered was if would the circumstances be different if they knew he knew of the of the obligation if he had knowledge of the history of substance there's no question of the of the risk of suicide there's no question that he had been tagged as a risk but you have to look at a specific action circumstance was the sheriff deliberately in a different place and can still and under the circumstances where he had already been in the cell in general population already attempted cord that's still sitting right in front of the desk where the jailers just just a few feet away from it so he's in constant surveillance all the time even though suicide watch requirements for fifteen you don't know i don't believe there are any i think it's just the records are records your record shows it's just the three cells three yes your honor and who was in that one there was a cell for women and there was the one over the man and then there were another cell there may have been more actual i don't recall if there's more cells in the jail problem is they couldn't staff those because they were you know those jail could have been up to fifteen that answer your question sauna there were there were only three functioning cells that could be in that y so from that standpoint cardless there's not any cases out there that established clearly established law and to put him in that cell under those circumstances in a deliberate indifference so from that standpoint sheriff isn't titled furthermore that's not our claim against balls what they're asking the court to do is this whom the facts in the light most favorable to the defendants and assume that that was the only scenario was affectively instructed not to enter the so long thereby preventing timely intervention and effective intervention in the event of a nd suicide attempt they were also and visually deliberately indifferent and failing to summon a need when they were informed by valse that an act of suicide was implied aggress and they were also deliberately indifferent failing to transfer their to a better equipped facility when they knew that there would not or could not got there just over five minutes after bricks he finally calls them after ten to fifteen minute delay for paramedics show up and logs doesn't have to go in the cell at all he just has to open the door for the fo paramedics and of course they transfer derek to better equip and felony again there's no issue so those issues all raised in our summary judgment response and they've been forfeited  what about this well what about yes let me turn to loss and that's a good question your honor because we have it also doesn't address all of our claims against law what it does what they're trying to do is of course so it tries on or to try to fit you bring us case and doing so they are trying to dance the argument that was d only choice was to do nothing to bridge derives or to enter the cell alone at the risk of his own safety and then and that tries to assume all the factual issues in favor of the defendant the district court rejected that properly so because we argued that there are underlying fact issues as to one whether the safety was at risk and two whether those were the only options available to him and pellets reply brief they try to say that facts don't really matter because the one issue before the court is objective results in us and that's an issue for the court but that's an incomplete statement of the standard ject of reasonableness on summary judgment is determined by viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the point of that is what the district court was addressing and that's what we continue to notice assert they want you to address the facts in the light most favorable to them and create a false r allergies summary judgment evidence shows that there are other choices available to him one you can call nine hundred and eleven and get the paramedics there in about five minutes and the video shows  the st paramedic there within five minutes it eventually shows that there are four paramedics there remember that walls doesn't ask as a need apparently a armed law enforcement officer to get went to the cell he goes into the so eventually on the basis is backup is a middle aged unarmed administrator you know apparently any warm body will do and for as long as is concerned in order to go into the and two vs jones prison official is different to an inmate if the official says it's substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate i can think of a more reasonable measure to name calling nine hundred and eleven now i appreciate that we do not define clearly established law and a high level of generality but neither do we so granulate it so that we have that first of all you don't have to reach it because the appellant don't reach they don't raise it and address it and are brits but if you do reach it there you know ample case needs for a for suicide prevention and it just seems an arguable that there's any way to do that without calling the medical the right standard to clearly establish well they cite those cases but they don't deal with our argument that we raised in our summary judgment response that laws was deliberately indifferent by failing to call nine hundred and eleven by failing an entirely on whether loss was reported in or the cell without backup at the risk of his own safety and as you pointed out that's not the only issue in the case do we need the determination of whether that's for them this case that a legal question or a factual question that is a legal question based upon the facts most favorable to the plan which gaulin with the trustee laws could have got a breathing mask have it ready for when he went and all the other defendants could have called nine hundred and eleven immediately  available and none of them is the there's a video news case so are they are there any disputed facts here do everything a legal call there are disputed facts and is not accurate that we do have a video that resolves a lot of things but unfortunately it doesn't resolve everything number one there's no audiotape on the video so we don't know what is being said we still have the issue of subjective deliberate indifference which gets into what the defendants actually know you can't expect the defendants to confess that they knew the situation was dangerous farmer says that we can prove that by the open and obvious nature of the telephone cord but they made it clear that they must have recognized the dangerousness of the situation we also ha there suicide prevention courses are only recently taken and referred to corded material in the dangers of corded material the dangers of being in isolation so it so that isolation it's not your honor because what i was referring to is the combination of instructing a jailer of having only one juggler on duty and having a policy not to enter and that's what the defendants keep coming back to they say oh well we made some effort because we we watched just you don't watch for the sake of watching you watch for the purpose of rendering aid in the event that there is a suicide in their own policy recognise that a person could die within five minutes if there's not an intervention because their highest suicide waiting said we watch them continuously or within five minutes but that's a meaningless standard on paper if you can't go in the cell and laws interpreter the policy is to keep himself out the alternative darker view here your honor for all the facts that favorable that are favorable to the pla trouble that he calls them all weekend the st suicide attempt after taken to hospital bring him back he was crying all the next morning for an hour i'm going to i'm going to kill myself i'm going to kill last picture of indifference outside the cell is just a picture of a man that is just put out tired of dealing with this and just doesn't care but those are the i difference because they gave an acutely suicidal man the means to commit suicide so i think that is directly analogous here as the case the district court cited we saw that case th you means for derek to commit suicide by putting him in that so long with a long long haul and much he appreciated subjectively they appreciated the danger of that on the basis of their their experience your training obvious nature and the technical assistance men and they got two thousand and fifteen put them on notice and sure i understand that they dispute receiving that and they dispute having that laws calculus as to whether he could go into the cell because then it was cited that it was too dangerous but that's not in the record laws never testified that he did not go into the cell for that reason he never makes a causal connection that the opponents are pushing and their grief in fact when we specifically asked him into his deposition can you give us a specific reason why you would have believed you could have been attacked he can't provide any specific reason all he refers to is a general possibility which was the same possibility when he had derek outside the cell and a small enclosed shara room literally two and a half minutes  he would be attacked when he got eric out of the cell and took him to the show there's always a relative danger for jugglers i think dangerousness is relative to the job there was not an extraordinary by policy was and despite i would disagree i believe the record is clear that mr law's said there were various reasons not to go in and he was going to go in because string he was going to go in because alice also we did have this disputed you know when you're talking about small counties and small and people that know each other and know their family so a little bit different situation going back to and i think the key point mr monroe was doing and doing a little bit more mopping part of that is just a delay in seeing what's happening and then figuring out what's happening and then making the connection and do it want to fault him for not running around the jail will you right there in front in this case there's no history of prior suicides in jail there is no history of a suicide attempt in the actual cell with high off links sure there's no evidence of prior attempted suicide there's no had not been addressed when there had been a previous attempt at suicide that is not the case we have here you have a case where there's no prior there's been no prior attempts at suicide in that jail least not during the sheriff's tenure and there had it talked about whether something is open and obvious but it talked about in terms of had there been previous incidents of it is there or is there been a pattern or use in the previous to make something obvious just the fact that there's a phone cord and there does not make it obvious that it would be us are with the court and that would be i i agree i agree with that analysis i also think it would be the case if they had had another inmate attempt to do it as a phone call or previously that they knew about so but time you know disregarding whether he didn't have a duty or not but if you had a duty to prevent his sources how much time did he have between the time the guy started putting   he was still sponsor the school they began c p r on him immediately they were able to rush him to the hospital the paramedics were and i don't think he died until a day or two later so he was still somewhat responsive but and i think that's and i think you can see that in the deposition testimony in the records because things like shoelaces and other literatures you're talking about mr thomas talked about train with cords all those things have been identified that they took away from those were the obvious it had on if it was in the cell because of the requirements of reasonable access to telephones as stablished by the supreme court under state law it's a it's a call service that they can  he felt how he figured that this was going to be a thing he could use to hang himself it's it it sits on the wall at about if you're sitting down it's sort of eye level it's right above a table that's in the and then fall down and it in close to his neck and strength well he did not fall down in this case what he did was he sat at the at the  desk he had the phone cord around him he had his arms in front of him on the desk and that's one of the reasons that deputy laws changed the laws i couldn't tell whether he had just wrapped around his neck because he was trying to get us to come in here it is way  far as getting his clothes back or if he was really trying to do any because you look like his weight was holding him up so he could not really tell what was happening that he did not hang it was not a case of a classic ainger any