constitutional violation it really didn't address the merits of the other apple leaves sure the court may be aware of the facts but just briefly summarize many of the facts are included the video for the courts determination so we submit that it would probably be necessary for the court so actually watch the video and listen to the audio portion to help you decide whether or not there were fact dispute based upon the district court's order mr ralph arrested for public intoxication he goes nd to the muskogee county jail he is d taken into the booking area and at some point not too long after he enters he engages some of the detention officers in conversations somewhat even described his conduct as being mouthy but the district court made a finding  mr rollo was mostly compliant and basically the district court said however from a review of the video it did not appear that mr west we pointed out in our response to summary judgment and would invite the court to review this as well the the mr west did admit on the video to another detention officer in response to a question or response to a statement by that other officer you shoved him and mr west said yeah i d munroe in ral and i realize it's after the events and it's unpublished but in ral the panel specifically acknowledged that there was a constitutional violation and recognizing that in that case that there was or forceful or anything like that so you would agree with that we did what d we would we do not contend that mr west was was trying to cause this man to die but if based on all the facts leading up to the time of if if if if it is it is just white said irrelevant if if we don't take into account for whatever reason the restraints here you're not arguing that the slight push the arm grabbed in the hallway in itself would have been enough for a violation of a clearly established constitutional right without regard to what precipitated them being in the hallway in the st place i'd respectfully disagree with that assessment and that is severe of the death is a is a big deal it's a significant factor and it's there are many cases that say in particularly in the deliberate indifference context in the court heard some of those cases this morning th that i mean in in our view the the minimus nature of the lesser show is taken in a different context if you look at the entirety of all the circumstances leading up to that what specifically with you cling to to argue that officer west acted in a way that was objective lee and reasonable but what exactly did he do that that was wrong here well st he he made the decision based upon very limited information to put mr raw in the restraint chair along with the other officers detention officers which the fall the decision to put him in the restraint chair to back caused the fall to happen not alone not independently but it was a part of that it caused i mean maybe it was about far but for the decision to put him in the restraint chair they wouldn't take any amount of the hallway but you can say the same thing about arresting him in the st place they had arrested him they wanted to take him out in the hallway so what does the restraint chair have to do with anything well i think the fact i fact that raul knew he was being taken to the restraint chair and he was d standing up for himself and questioning whether or not that was necessary as they were walking down the hall or the restraints are so true but  decision to put him in the restraint chair in isolation would not be a political fact but if you take if you look at the the facts from the video and the finding by the district court that mr rove was was being complian then one must ask yourself why why why why go to the extreme of putting him in the restructure but that is a sequence of events and as they're walking down the hallway culminating in west arm and was directing him down the hallway but mr raul kept turning his head towards officer weston is intoxicated how's that man handling well the district court made a finding in but goes on to say the camera angles and position of the bodies make this impossible to determine we say that a jury should be able to look at this evidence to to determine it was especially given west admissions to his fellow coworker that he yeah he shoved it so even if we assume that he did give him a push i think that what judge matheson is asking him is how is that objectively an reasonable force in the context of the supreme court's admonishment that not every pusher shaab even if the name later seem unnecessary violates a prisoner's constitutional not appear from the video or anything west d said during his deposition or any of the other facts that were presented to the district for that did not appear to be necessary not only to take them to the restraint chair but given that not only didn't appear not to be necessary d to manhandle him in a manner which may have contributed to the fall especially in light of west submission that he showed up to be admitted to his to the other officer that he shoved him so position that any level of foreigners that result in a serious injury including death is objectively on the reasonable sailboat he poked and he said you know knock it off you know you need to go ahead and he's he's drunk he's obviously it difficult for him to stay on his own and he's like he said he's turning around because he doesn't want to go there and so he punks have been many trips because he's drunk does that mean that there was an objectively and reasonable use of force if the if the touching by the jailer caused the man to go to the ground yes i would say at least it's a fact question at least it's a fact question but here we with the knowledge that mr west was arrested for public intoxication but he was a pretrial detainees and type of resumption of innocence and looking at his behavior in the booking area before he was taken to the restraint chair ye was talking a lot he wasn't sitting down but looking at judge white's findings that he was mostly from playa and even the fine day that you know if the decision whether or not to take him to the restraint chair was the only issue you know he would have decided against the our police but it's that it's those critical facts that occur in those circuits down the hallway and mediately before mr west's west went to the ground those facts with his admission subsequent to the incident to his fellow worker that he shoved him that he pushed them it's our position under those circumstances summary judgment should not have been granted a jury should have been or factfinder should have been allowed to make a determination but it can you point to me a case where that is clearly established such that it would he be whether they officer should have known all office reasonable officers should have known that just even a slight two or pretrial the detainees was enough to violate their constitutional rights i would say  you're going to the restraint chair the d just talking back and forth on the hallway to the restraint chair west then man handling him and ralph falling to the ground and then west admitting yeah i shoved him those are all facts in sequence that a jury could find that this force was was objective lee unreasonable ethel your time just expired did you want to make one concluding sentence or should we move on just very briefly if i might once again mr rob was compliant he was not a threat to anyone and west st i want to state certainly we're all in agreement this was an unfortunate accident that ended tragically with the loss of mr rials life however we still have to discipline the analysis to kingsley and to the things that points up as important what i've heard from mr monroe today and from the briefing i think plan was to dition markedly undercuts three distinct pillars of the kingsley analysis number one the analysis in kingsley advises we cannot apply this standard mechanically we have to assess the totality of the circumstances impacting the decision plaintiff's  tax seems to be a mechanical simplistic narrative of great injury resulted error go there must have been great force applied it's kind of a variation of the no harm no foul well flip that over and we have great harm great file that is a mechanical simplistic narrative that kingsley proscribes expressly secondly kingsley's explicitly states we have to make the determination from the perspective of the officer on the scene and what that officer knew it says we are not to make that assessment using two thousand and twenty vision of hindsight i think appellants position does just that it's over co and suffused with a hindsight analysis if we home in on the moments where raul and wes walk out to the hallway and take particular notice of those factors in the record we turned his face repeatedly towards west and west grabs his arm and common escort hold so those are the three factors as they're proceeding in time appellants position seems to want to go back  reverse engineer the amount of force used based solely on the result what happened but going to s he knows that he's drunk he knows that he's the i mean very very drunk he sees bruises and markings that he had been in a fight he's got an even footing and so let's say in a round or hudson it's a slight push but it's not a slight push under a perfectly normal circumstances it's it's a slight push where he can easily have tripped and there's you can tell from the video even if he had lived you can obviously tell that the surface is extremely dangerous and so i don't think anybody i don't think you would quarrel with the fact that if you go to west and put his foot out and there's a slight push and up what's wrong with it well your honor i understand the question however we have to in the kinsley analysis recognize that we're dealing with the transfer of a detainee in a jail hallway and we have to defer to one of the pillars that was going to note one of the pillars is we have to defer to the policies and practices of the jail to not only restore order but preserve and maintain order of that jail and some slight escort hold is entirely incidental to jail transfer in a hallway now i think there's a disconnect respectfully between the idea of sticking out one's foot to trip and in make during a transfer and just applying f force the latter of which we have here i think the facts and the conclusion could be diff different if we had conclusive evidence of sticking one's foot out that may yoked to the idea of punishment here all we have is incidental down in the holding cell now he's not walking as ordered is turning around towards me and so i was the jailer am applying guiding force in the hallway something that's been same stand over and over again and ten circuit law as cited in our the six factors don't have to re man because i don't recall any discussion of the penal logical need or the preceding years for moving prisoners and what you just argued i don't recall that being before the district court or the district court considering it in wayne those factors your honor no i don't think you would have to re man number one to use of force in the field with arrestees secondly even if the district court didn't follow through the complete kingsley analysis even using graham there are many reasons why reversals not required number one clearly established law shows that guiding and then made through a hallway even pushing in may through a hallway is incidental to jail transfer and is part and parcel of jail normal jail operations and has last point do you read the district court opinion as relying at all on the nd prong of qualified immunity and say i'm looking at page five then and at the very end it says having found no constitutional honor i would say the court does say that the next sentence begins the court does know however that the th circuit held that even a novice or slinging plaintiff and to a cell causing injury does not violate clearly establish law relying on route in so even if the holding perceval was just based on the st prong as you know this court has the ability to affirm on any prong even if it wasn't reached by the district court here i think that's available on the clearly established nd prong number one plaintiff didn't try to carry its heavy burden in any regard on that st prong relying only on state law and jail policy and procedure for that reason alone this court can affirm secondly run into the concrete wall of route showing that guiding in pushing an inmate into a jail hallway or into a cell is just not even plausible and state constitutional violation even if the motion to honor so it's not quite a concrete wall it's concrete in terms of the concrete and alice is something clearly established which is supposed to be concrete in particular eyes to the facts of the case and in so far as route bases it's holding on other concerted case law and lastly i wanted to correct appellants council he said that west had admitted that he had said yes or yeah i shoved him we in fact disputed that below what we did admit is that west said he kept turning his body toward me and i think tried to walk him he admitted to applying forward guiding force not to shaming him but in any regard i think it's immaterial that it's not in the record on appeal correct the at least the portion referenced by mr monroe earlier as far as the shoving and the yeah i just wanted to make that correction to the record and then lastly i'll end by noting there's an utter dearth of cases supreme court or th circuit which would connect with their circumstances faced by defendant west that would have a price them that his conduct in applying guiding force or even argue endo showing an inmate in a jail hallway would be objective lee and reasonable there's certainly a debate and it's not beyond debate therefore it's not clearly established and plaintiff has carried his burden on now transfer the matter to n p r s good afternoon i represent the board of county commissioners muskogee county sheriff rob frazier jacob play the guy who was behind mr west and lacy ross and if the co opportunity to address all of these issues with regard and i have to go really quickly because i'm limited on time but with regard to jacob slay he didn't apply any force he was behind them the whole incident from the  time lasted about four seconds and he didn't have the time to prevent it or even notice that anything excessive was being done as we've talked about it's just guiding force and so the only claim against him is a failure in a being in there just wasn't time for him to do anything with acting within two seconds three seconds of the fall he's reaching for his arm for shoulder where his where his mike is and he's calling on the dispatch and then you see him i think if i remember right he wanted to go into the office and then he comes back what he's calling dispatch and having the ambulance dispatched immediately and so he is showing concern about that but they don't do said again they don't so they don't you know they well there is no claim for a denial of medical care failure to perform c p r but again what they are doing is they're doing chest rubs right here and when you see the e m t is come they don't come in and do any they don't do any c p r because he's breathing and he's got a heartbeat that's not the issue none of that would help when there's nothing they could do and when the yankees come in they don't do any of that you know they put him on because what he's got is a subdural hematoma a bleed in the brain and nothing that that the m p s could do would do would do anything for that i'm running out of time some of the lazy ross and if that's ok he wasn't even in the hallway and there's no evidence in the record that ross a knew that slayer west was going to use excessive force against raul as they escorted him down the hallway and so i think it was the court would be appropriate in granting summary judgment for her and with regard to the board of county commissioners and share brazier there the policy there has been no argument that the policy w unconstitutional or was in any way inappropriate there's no evidence of any cat or a procedure of that happening there's no evidence that jacob lay or west or austin had been use excessive force in the past that would put him on any kind of notice and there's no indication that they're trading with in significant or improper or would have been such that it led to the level of deliberate indifference for them to require any more training they were all training they yell shadow they took that took the jailer training they were given ground combat training so with regard to that i think the court can go ahead and affirm on all of these all of all of my clients even if they do find there's a question of fact which i don't think there is because i think kingsley says a pre tell detainees much show that the force purposefully or knowingly used against him and that here is the per the force of breaching an arm and guiding which is what everybody uses in the jails everywhere that's the force that was purposefully and knowingly used was objective really and reasonable here that force is not unreasonable thank you thank you have so i think we exhausted allocated time so you will consider this case  submitted thank you for your arguments counselor excuse thank you