highly individualized inquiry that has to go on but that's the summary judgment what hastie have that says there is a highly individualized inquiry  ashcroft merciful which said that that they dition to the fact that there can't be responded to period that purpose rather than knowledge is required in order to impose constitutional liability and they have to facts that these people are not were transferred they're not getting the treatment and that the individuals they've named are people who are responsible for assuring that they do get this treatment and we also have the knowledge that this transfer to this this prison was turned down because it wasn't wasn't going to be you know sufficient the training was not going to be sufficient there so this knowledge that know really i think it's going to go back it's going to go back for a motion to dismiss based on moot because the conditions that pertain to twenty day no longer protected so i don't think there's going to be a need for any discovery going back on the injunctive relief cl individual i believe the district court's decision really stands for the proposition that if plaintiff can allege that there's constitutional wrongdoing by somebody that anybody by virtue of their title or position is what that they have to be allegations that make relief possible because it is vigil and that's an individual it isn't a fair inference that because of their position and the allegations that it went from so many hours of treatment because they each have their separate state agencies and separate state departments with separate statutory responsibilities and i think they have to be a little more particular than that and when they responded to our first implying motion to dismiss they didn't even address the if this is too large about because it wasn't big enough to provide appropriate treatment so again there's just no connection anywhere in the decision we're to complain if anything to any of these individuals or before this court  the only claim to be that the district court decided and the only claims of unity properly before you today for this reason the appeal should be dismissed your your honest defendants raise professional by a professional what do we do when the district court writes an extensive opinion not based upon that claim that based upon another assertion that said j a one twenty two as to the lack of people in the ass then he sort of does a thorough job and does his that's to make sense of something that was never clearly pulled together for the district court again what what can we do about that it was just when you are  was fundamentally inadequate to address his needs but you say defendants chose to do this but there is no allegation in the complaint as to what any of these defendants actually did  makers who had control over this system why decision made a choice which is evident from paragraph forty eight and fifty to transfer our my clients from one facility to another and it's also clear your honor that they knew  knew that there was progress and that once my clients reach t j s he which the complaint describes as as having prison like conditions in which the state says in its opening brief was a former administrati segregation unit designed for solitary confinement that once there they received no care that their care persistency the client it's also important to know your honor that this is continuing an ongoing violation in other words once my clients arrived at the j s p and it became clear that they were no longer receiving their prescribed there prescribe to care nothing was done to correct that situation so even it and in discovery the state was able to marshal facts that initially they may not have known once my clients are there and for years do not have the same number of processors for years do not have the same number of models for years do not have models or process scripts or any kind of therapeutic treatment with the appropriate mix of presidents and with an appropriate errors and reach claims that they wouldn't otherwise reach but in this case you know that's a pragmatic doctrine based on ceding the court's time and resources and based on making sure that part parties are treated fairly here there's simply no efficiency gain there's no reason to house my clients so you're saying it's not that you didn't rely upon it with the truth of what happened there but we all know to put these defendants on notice that what they were doing here was questionable at best and was on their traditional experience and common sense we trust district courts to work out what's appropriate and what's not and in every other contacts other than exceptional clowder order contacts that fee end of the story that if the motion is just missed and things go to discovery