lowder i'm sorry that's better entitled to qualify judicial immunity in this case because they exercised discretionary judgement comprehensive psychological risks risk assessment let me tell you my concern is in this case your position may be correct we're here on a motion for judgment on the pleading and can i tell from the pleadings that your clients exercise that kind of judgment that you're now say don't exercise that kind of authority and the district judges i read it was very careful to say look i'm restricted to the pleadings under pleadings you don't seem to meet the supreme court fine my question is how does the report indicate that they are making judicial decisions if you will as opposed to charging decisions if the function  say that they're there from which it is to be you know the kind of function supreme court says you have to have my strong suspicion is that it is but like judge bryer i'm stuck with the allegations of the complaint so how do i can't psychological evaluation repairer or based on that you ation and submit that report to the parole board for review nothing more nothing less so even taking that information from gays grief looking at the report well you know the statute it's clear you would argue that these individuals are not performing a law enforcement function like investigating elation as  records they're conducting an interview and they are using their discretionary judgment their independent judgment to determine whether he is i risk for violence violence or some other whether if it is it is some other category i just how do is judged to be a high risk for violence it using their discretion authority but it's not enough isn't that the test isn't whether or not somebody is exercising discretion the question is whether or not the at least our researchers as we've concluded every case that has dealt with this issue as determined these psychologists are entitled to this type of immunity and there's no material were held to have asked liam unity because those cases were cited under a standard that is court and the supreme court has previously rejected and lastly of the cases cited by and then finding that parole board members were judicial discretion well but she has a question is a question is whether their job requires the exercise not whether they blew it in this case court appointed medical malpracti a doctor is a court appointed expert to look at the record and give the court its opinion about whether or not malpractise had been committed when that doctor be entitled to  interviews in may to assess her risk for violence or a medical professional preparing a report the direction of the court they're not making any determination or adjudication as to her these rights and therefore they're not using discretion as that term is understood rather they are gathering facts and distilling those into finding another official can then you in the course of action that you get all the nature then yes well that's my point my point is not your argument should not be whether or not they abused their discretion the question is whether or not they were exercising their discretion in what the supreme court has said is a quayside usual function whether they abused it or not doesn't doesn't answer the question for me and defendant and the plaintiff and that shows that the function that the defendant harmed performed here was to act as a fact finder and may address the defendant's point that i would say that the reasoning is directly here because what matters here is not the title of the official or there it is important to the judicial function but rather the nature of the function they performed and here that is the act of investigating through the interview process exactly what the complete details and that's what happened here in light of and one discordant bound to follow the functional task established and one and apply last which asks whether the official in question acted in a manner functionally comparable to a judge and acting as an arm of the court however and one has confirmed that whether the official role was important or indispensable to the judicial process no longer the role of and or for purposes of  example a psychologist on corporate structured risk assessment instruments that are commonly used by mental health professionals was just the risk of violence are straight individuals the core taste judicial notice of this statute and statute