sloan may please the court i am william sultan and i represent the plaintiff appellant mark fritz in this case we are here today because the state superintendent published on its website the mr fritz was under investigation when mr was not important at the panel understand that that phrase under investigation has a specific limited meaning under wisconsin law it means that the state superintendent received a report for which an investigation was warranted that mr fred had engaged in a crime against a child a sex offense or immoral conduct which is a device which is defined as downloading or viewing pornography or trying to help somebody get a job who she knew had committed a sex act and none of that was true this posting remained online for more than a year at the time mr fritz was out of work and he was looking for a job learned through a prospective employer that he could not be hired because he was under investigation by the wisconsin department public instruction when he contacted the department of public instruction for more information they simply ignored him and they ignored him for more than a year until he hired me can i ask you about appellate jurisdiction here i don't see a judgment from the district court i and as i understand the station limitations it would be too late to file a new case and that i think that i think the court is is incorrect on the statue limitations on wisconsin the statue limitations fred it's true that the judgement does not state that it is with prejudice but that's certainly was our understanding of the district court's decision there is a judgment but with the judge said without prejudice in the judge's opinion in order it does say that it's without prejudice but i believe that the filing of the judgment dismissing the case starts the clock for mr fred's to file an appeal and i did you consider file an amended complaint i have considered filing a minute complaint but given the district court's decision and there are some strong concerns that i have about issues of claim or issue preclu josh hamilton what i would say is the district court noted that on d p i's own website it states that the only time that they publish on a website that somebody is under investigation is when they receive a complaint under immoral conduct the problem i mean immoral conduct would apply to socrates the charges against socrates in athens and corrupting the youth of athens we just don't know very much but i assume th of think we have to to treat very seriously that your your allegations arguments about the practical effects of this listing i guess one of my other questions is what rim of the are you seeking at this point  definition it says behavior that's contrary to commonly accepted moral or ethical standards and that endangers the health safety welfare education of any pupil suppose a physical education teacher knowingly starts swimming class without a lifeguard be placed under investigation and or that provision i don't believe so chemistry teacher knowingly purposely leaves the classroom with all the bunsen burners going i don't believe so why not i believe under the under the definition that as we've included are in our filing that immoral conduct is actually a limited to these two men downloading pornography or trying to help someone to get a job and i mean it's limited to serves i think it does say that in section thirty one one c one a and b and it says it includes all of the following after this much broader definition that would certainly include which  know i'm not sure where that winds up taking us except that we really have no idea what this complaint might have been about but how do you how do we how do we get to monetary relief when you say superintendent evers in his official capacity well when we originally brought the lawsuit we were seeking to be able to conduct some discovery on the case to see who was ultimately responsible but we believe ivor should have implemented proper procedures that would have prevented this from happening i think it's important to understand that there was never an allegation within the definition or the court's expanded understanding of the definition ever leveled against mr my understanding is that that was not the allegation that they were concerned about or that was leveled against mr fred and furthermore i'd point out that after a year of dealing with race in these states superintendent came back and said there wasn't probable cause that he was out of work at the high school that i don't work at a school district judge emphasized in the opinion i'm looking at appendix thirteen there are no allegations of facts that he was fired suspended or otherwise disciplined i don't so why was there such an allegation and if so where is it now i think it's a fair inference from the complaint we don't state that he was you know forced to resign or temporarily while he has to allege that on your client just allege that especially given the legal test that applies here i don't believe this court's president requires that mr fred have lost his job in order to then later held that if you lose your job as a result of the slander that that does require here the loss of the job requires the hearing not the slant so you've got a claim here of libel of defamation but no allegation of losing the job as a result of it so you don't come within caught against gallagher's arguable exception to call against davis  case mr ball singer was indicted and he didn't go to trial for ten years you think the indictment was just a rollicking violation of the due process clause because it wasn't preceded by an adversarial  for ten years the man was under a cloud was that all unconstitutional rooting for him or he was not deprived of an opportunity to run his nose was would hire the man while he was under constitution because it is not preceded by in every serial or every public arrest violates the constitution because it is not preceded by an adversarial hearing and once you know once the general public learns that stockbroker jones has been arrested on the floor of the stock exchange and given the perp walk he's not going to be hired now your view this is all you know standard procedure is all unconstitutional root and branch might want to think about the implications of this i don't believe i go that far but i would submit that in all of those cases there is actually an underlying allegation  and here you think it you think it is worse not to make a detailed allegation than to make it that is if if the listing were accompanied by the nature of the charge would that make things better in your view in this instance it would have i'm not asking about in this instance the constitution isn't written for in this instance we have general rules and it would be most peculiar i think to have a rule that there can be formal public criminal charges against somebody not preceded by a hearing and not immediately followed by hearing whereas just a notice that we're investigating something situational but that seems to be your argument and it's hard to follow if i could just follow up briefly an unrelated matter you had referred earlier to wanting to do discovery to find some  defendant i think i frankly don't see how you could get damages from mr evers i don't see any injunctive relief that the federal courts could offer you that would be meaningful at this point but maybe i'm missing something or you certainly we think that we would have an opportunity for the district court to reconsider some of those claims if this court order to reverse that decision so what other claims what relief certainly they will protection claim that mr prince said about the theories relief what relief could a court order be provided from what defendant i believe that the that the that the district i think from an individual defendant and i also we also ask individual defendants if it starts any and this case but we did also ask that the statute be declared unconstitutional as applied to mr critz in this matter let's assume it's elaborate as you want get him anywhere i don't believe so your honor and certainly not against the state superintendent who really had no role in the allegations school district the recent school district that compiled these alleged allegations and then transmitted those allen the ones that were found without probable cause that's right and go through the indication there was an actual investigation conducted any time in the first year or for the complaint was received i put on just the complaint i don't think there's there's any indication about the specifics of the investigation you know whether at a kurd at month nine verses among thirteen of the i think seventeen months but the fact of the matter is the investigation did  occur as demonstrated by the ultimate conclusion that allegations were insufficient to support probable cause for licensure revocation is there anything comparable to a speedy trial district allegations then we do get to a hearing with full administrators preview rights and i mean with what concerns me is that we're being told in essence that this listing you know the same effect as a in no obvious way to force the issue well i think even assuming those points the question here is whether superintendent can be held liable for any damages there and i think there we return to the fact that these are receiving allegations and while as the court recognized there aren't any allegations about to the state superintendent now and say i'd like to see the allegations against me i believe so your hon public there is adverse publicity and then a year later the prosecutor announcers that he's not being indicted so far as i know under federal law x has absolutely no right to and my my understanding is that the materials would have to remain confidential during the investigation but i think following the investigation i'm just asking whether there's something other than your understand complaint from racine at page three of his reply brief he suggests that there's a fair inference that the risk of the complaint was never sent to the superintendent and that's simply incorrect based on his did not employ mr frets he mr fritz had no employment relationship with the department of public instruction superintendent uber had decision making power on a license and the simply no allegation that his license was suspended or revoked and as we see it's to the contrary he retained his license so there is no deprivation or alteration or rebuttal first i'll say that at page three of the reply brief what i say is that the state superintendent did not receive a complaint or subsection three which is correct but thinking back as to the ball singer situation it seems case it was as well it's the timeframe that it took as an apartment and the fact that mr fred's during that timeframe the reason i say that is because i understand your claim correctly it's not what they needed some reason to put me on the list which entitle to hearing before they put me on the list and those are really completely different claims or after at any time he was entitled ok thank you very much the case is under advisement