district court and the district court dismissed all of his claims for failure to state a cause of action the a significant issue in this appeal is the the standard of review i wouldn't have expected it to be a significant issue but at least between mr stokley and ms joyce there is that that is a bone of contention the standard of review as mr stokley s their claim his allegations are taken affect their token is true and and if they start a plausible claim then he should survive a motion to dismiss ms joyce has taken the position that the supreme court n that's that's not it doesn't say that if you do it and you know who would need jurors you'd be resolving cases by who can who can make the most convincing argument about what the facts in the case that are in a complaint mean that's just that it doesn't say that that's not the standard the standard is that those allegations are taken as true it's mandatory for the district court to grant the pleader of the benefit of reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts that am here rather soft in the process i think that that the opinion that cited in the rule twenty a j letter as i read the opinion it doesn't change the it doesn't affect the viability of the consequent he never would have been prosecuted he never would have been arrested he would not have been put through the ordeal that he was caught through if there hadn't been an arrest warrant issued and if the probable cause circumstances had gave to judgment in his affidavit which was prepared by ms joyce according to the allegations of the complaint was an altogether different event than than the event that was described as very well documented but is described in the allegations of the complaint that what what officer deacon said to judgment to get his arrest warrant was that mr joyce and sorry mr stokley and his partner were engaged in a high speed chase of mr smith they had during the course of that chase mr starkly made the colorful comment that he made about what was going to happen and that the that mr smith was going to be killed that they were going to kill mr smith and that when mr smith smith after they saw him make a hand to hand you are transaction on a fast food restaurant parking lot they tried to block his car from when he got into his car they tried to block it so they could apprehend him he got into the car and backed into the police car repeatedly slammed the car on the side of him repeatedly managed to get himself out of the parking space in the course of doing that both officers had drawn there were weapons and both officers saw him which are gun on the passenger seat of his car mr stokley made the remark that he made now that remark could have meant at least any any of at least three things reasonably but i can come up with one i'm going to sass from and when i get the opportunity  going to shoot this guy five times and kill him two were in a police s u v chasing a guy who's trying desperately to escape who is desperate not to be arrested as proven by what he did on the parking lot we're chasing about high rate at a high rate of speed through a shady traffic this is not going to end gently he's going to crash into something and we're on his tail it's sixty or eighty miles an hour we're going to drive right up over the top of his car or more likely in my opinion the w that any one of those three explanations is reasonable when you want to figure out which one is implausible you go to what happened what once the mr mister wells car to whatever his comment on that during the chase man did not mean i'm planning to kill this guy information that any reasonable person would know that a judge would want to know to be able to evaluate the circumstances approach for a probable cause and there is a case from this court that directly addresses that conduct  large our complaint with the district court is the way it applied the law ok so the complaint and i don't think that the but the complaint with this report would be just the way primarily the way the court applied the law the standard of review for a motion agree we should on the complaint what evidence is there something wrong with an investigative action what she did with that was investigated was this as i've said there was a remarkably further investigation done by several law announced in press conferences and in court that that i'm talking about press conferences so that she had no evidence that that she had acquired new evidence and that b prosecutorial activity is conduct by the prosecutor but is not part of the traditional judicial role of a prosecuting attorney and it is not part of the traditional role of a prosecuting attorney may please the court counsel dave aloose on behalf of jennifer joyce a lesser court has any questions i want to take my time and make a couple comments about the reply brief to which i have not had the opportunity to apply my st observation about the reply brief is regarding the nd claim that mr stokley makes against mr joyce regarding her supposedly false public statements as the court knows in order to state a substantive due process claim he needs to allege a fundamental right and two that it was violated by conduct that shocks the conscience conscious in the reply brief at page nineteen plan of says the fundamental right that he allegedly his complaint was the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury he cites the appendix at page thirteen through sixteen to support the claim that he made that allegation in his complaint it's not there nowhere in his complaint does he alleged that the fundamental d right he was pursuing  due process claim was a right to a fair trial by an impartial jury in fact judge shaw noted this in his opinion of page thirteen he said plaintiff complaint does not identify what fundamental fundamental right was violated by joyce's alleged false statements to the media and to the public we were on to the impression that this was a reputational claim so judge shaw issued an order that said you can't recover from reputational damage under a substantive due process point you don't have a property or liberty interest in your reputation that's what our brief said as we judge shaw said there really isn't any debate about that there has been no contrary argument what we're left with here is a contention made for the st time on appeal never presented to judge shaw not part of the record that the fundamental right that is being protected or that the claim seeks to protect is a right to a fair trial by an impartial jury even if we were to allow that claim to survive despite us not having been made below the claim still fails the nd element of a substandard substantive due process claim as a requirement that the conduct shock the conscience plaintiff cites no case in which a court has found that a pretrial media statement was so outrageous that it shocked the conscious and supports a substantive due process claim he cites to berger and the infamous sam sheppard case neither of those one hundred and eighty three cases both culpability the courts the supreme court has made various iterations it must be the most egregious official conduct it must be conduct that violates the decencies of civilized conduct it must be conduct that is so brutal and offensive as to not comport with her additional ideas of fair play and decency was alleged in this case is that mr joyce as a public official announced that she was filing a charge against a person who she had an obligation to believe was can't file as a prosecutor that you're required to have a belief that the defendant is guilty and she supposedly made this new evidence comment in connection with announcing that charge your honor that simply is not conduct it shocks the conscience it cannot does to this this klein that we just heard that that this statement by the prosecutor about new evidence contaminated the jury prospective jury pool dry i think it's very detrimental to his claim he had a right to a jury trial he would have had a right to avoid hear that panel he would have a right to have the judge exclude people for a cause who might have been infected by this new evidence comment he could have he could have pursued a jury trial and very likely with the protections that are afforded at the criminal stage would have had an impartial jury he chose not to and now he's claiming that this was a sort of stray random comment is what it has cost him his right to an impartial jury trial i think th i think they're quite happy with judge wilson's approach to the case i have but by for nothing critical of judge wilson's opinion the nd issue i would want to briefly address is this notion that we have argued for a new or different standard of review on a motion to  eighty two but they definitely went into this alternate analysis but for our purposes the point is moot we never argued that this claim should be dismissed because there was some alternate plausible analysis of the factual allegations of his complaint what interviewing witnesses that's not going to the crime scene that's not investigatory conduct she met with protesters again that's not investigatory conduct and finally that she supposedly terminated the forced investigation units investigation which is  a theme we see repeatedly in the complaint what the complaint says is when she made the decision to charge mr stokley that investigation shut down so what he's saying is her decision to charge is the basis of his subst process claim she has absolute immunity for the decision to charge she has absolute immunity to decide to force investigation unit investigation wasn't necessary in her view that another investigation had happened that the re specifically says that that is the essence of what a prosecutor does and that is why we claim and what judge shaw found that when you really look at the complaint there just aren't any allegations of true investigative conduct there this bare naked assertion that she conducted her own investigation which is contradicted by the way by assertions in the complaint that she didn't conduct any investigation that squashed investigations she bypassed investigations when you read the complaint as a well it all depends on the word new and again that it's new and newly available where are the allegations in the complaint new to her new to the to the entire case we don't know the complaint doesn't specify but however assume th she had something new it didn't necessarily come about by investigatory conduct somebody could have come to her with an admission so there's but there's no factual allegation about how she acquired that and no factual allegation that she engaged in invest  what do you think that if the this very short probable cause statement that you you would have to consider very brief if the information if it was supplemented with the supported probable cause found no it would not the district court of course reconstructed the probable cause statement containing all the omissions that the appellant alleged were inappropriately included  excluded from the statement again the only false fact that is alleged that is contained in a probable cause statement is the fact that mr karr was slowing to a stop prior to the appellant approaching the car and those statements are completely immaterial to the finding of probable cause in this case a reconstructed probable cause statement would still support probable cause the facts that were allegedly omitted do not negate probable cause in this case the facts that the district court found sufficient for the finding of probable cause for the statement by the appellant that he was going to kill that expletive don't you know it and the fact that d really think that i would given all that information describing a police involved shooting you really think a judge would find probable cause yes the arrest certainly the of the officer when you supply all that information  the the authority that i didn't have at hand regarding the the constitutional violation in harrington not representing the  statement crabbe probable cause affidavit and one in the complaint that there were two different events altogether different one of them was sufficient to get a warrant issued properly show because because there was enough  the affidavit to support probable cause once you fill in the rest of the details i can't imagine a judge issuing an arrest warrant this is that story is a story of a police officer risking his life to avoid harm befalling when you i think it has to be a case by case determination because of the nature of the issue and when you break it down item by item within the case each individual item might not sound like something you have to tell the warren judge but when you compared the event that was