why this court should be clear about the circumstances surrounding defendants as a whole as well as he should and individually this includes what mr rico complains about and what portion of that is actually caused by defendants or within their control that is going to how considering these particular facts let's take a look at it let's take a look at the order there's nothing in the order that says you can use any method names of ensuring the barrier has no zero and that there isn't receiver to conclude that knowing their involvement a reasonable official would have believed that they were not in me by any measure right it wasn't whether they actually believed or that no one got a guard when checks were control room as opposed to simply a key that opens a door so that the guard really doesn't have any control over how much noise it makes when the doors open and close that's pressure and then do the order specify that the checks have to be made of the officials off but not all of them i mean if if the system is specified by a court order and it's depriving the inmates of sleep then it seems to me the liability here everybody's liable for the war going on  deserve all i need to be looking at their specific kind of for instance edward g carr who just responded to his in his official grievance saying sorry we can't change the carbon system because it is mandated by the court we can't get the area or in a yard together this is this is the highest secure area of the prison we're basically yourself twenty three hours a day and when we move you out of the cell you're moved by several correctional officers one inmate at a time so i guess i'm back to my puzzle about why the district court drew the line here between the nightwatch d supervisors that they want to supervise is when there's that exposing somebody to valley fever is a violation of the remnants of what is there that big difference there in terms of relying on that case in addition to the fact that here in terms of the complaining about where they are still creating excessive noise and there's nothing in it i returned to this is nothing in that order that says you can view anything you wish to hear in order to ensure pleading stage based on qualified immunity if there are disputed facts or inferences that could be drawn either way or unknown facts that would affect whether all white immunity applies and i don't think qualified immunity is appropriate yet and this guard weapon system right they had to use the system to record it i suppose there could be a question of whether they could also walk into the cell after they tap the metal button and we got the inmate and i would argue but that would definitely be unconstitutional if they added that l the appointed hour that's right and i do think the system inherently creates some to waste but for the purposes of mr because damages claims he's only complaining about the noise from the implementation if there's some sort of causation the court's order because they made separate decisions of their own that are specifically alleged in the complaint that would be on the order they made choices like not preparing the pod to worst which the complaint alleges to fixing they hit the buttons multiple times which was not th standard card one system they get that counsel this is a this is their a steel and concrete facility is it not with very heavy doors if it's designed that way because of the type of inmates that were liable for the design of the facility liable for the choices they made that were within their discretion within that context and with discretionary decisions that may specifically they hit the buttons more than once each time that they walked is yeah that's exactly right and i understand the defendants position is that they were doing the best they could in the context of that system they were being as quiet as they could the problem is that that's not what the complaint says and you know we should have discovery on whether or implementation choices i wanted to address this notion that came out of the required refn oral argument that they wouldn't have known from the grievances that he was complaining about implementation they would have thought he was complaining only about resistant itself because that's simply not true heard anything before about about the idea that the day watch officers should be dismissed specifically but to address it i think what the complaint says is that they work on the nd or rd watch it doesn't contain any information to evaluate whether or not   ledge that those specific officers engaged in the concrete implementation problems that made the checks too noisy to sleep and if you think that there's a need to specifically alleging he sometimes slept at those times or tried to sleep at those times  i didn't see that and that's a problem that i have to you have to show personal involvement in each and every person that you lead that out seems like you are d in parental re saying that well if we're talking specifically about the day correctional officers i would direct you to paragraph forty one dollars which talks about the issues during the day and i think it's paragraphs that space specifically the implementation problem that that paragraph thirty five and sleep during the day if that's necessary i don't think that it is and then one that affects only three of the defendants i still think that there are specific allegations about all of the remaining defendants as to the slightly more senior defendants prevents and then parrot that fifty two dollars alleges that after reviewing those grievances that each one of them reviewed they didn't take action to solve the problems listed in those grievances so that does tie each defendant to the knowledge of the problems and specifically implementation problems not just the existence of the system itself in fact in some of the on excerpted part of mr because reagan says that are in the record below the initial complaint that stock at one in the district or for example on page thirty true there mr rico's complaint specifically reads you can continue with your welfare checks all you need to do is not create excessive noise so i do think it was clear that the problems were around the excessive noise created by the implementation and not the existence of the checks in the refusal to repair the the doors the hitting of the buttons more than once the hitting the button part of the step just touching it but we're in was aware of those implementation problems because he saw those really bad is that in the complaint that's where i'm having a problem is i don't specific grievances that and then in turn the commune over the grievances were complaining about these problems so that shows that he knew about these problems that's been out but then he took action he didn't take action to fix the specific implementation problems at most someone at c d c are changed advocated to change the frequency of the checks it's not clear the warden had any involvement in that i don't know and there's nothing i know of in the record that says who precisely at c d c are asked for the reduction in frequency but my point is that the reduction in frequency is not the implementation problem complained about in the damages allegations in this complaint it's those specific things and he didn't fix those specific things find for example no actions were taken to make the guard one checks wider about in paragraph fifty two that to me reads as a broad statement that no actions were taken to address these problems across time it doesn't specifically say that that's also crucial because it's whether there was a chief law at the time that would have given fair warning or notice to all the officials that their specific conduct whether it was running up the stairs or touching the buttons more than once or answering these the grievance