the facility where he was locked up behind lock and key just like in a private jail or prison they did that separately from their action of lying to the court for the orders and then rd they were responsible for his medical care  during the time when he was locked up and addressing the colored lights you know i'd like to start from the from the end up in the rd one because it's the simplest there's a supreme court of the united states case that is directly on point west  taken hold so when private companies and private doctors go into facilities jails and prisons where people are held against their will they are engaged in a public function and they are acting under color of state law because the government have an obligation to provide medical care to those people which locked up and deprived of their ability to get around or providing medical care to mr ross and medical care that we  do that no other private hospital do that is only done by the specific actors that are qualified and given the special powers to do what the state is required to do what's in her mind that a person is a danger it's not uncommon for somebody to leave it up and taken by law enforcement to a hospital busy for an immediate decision as to what to do with this person and it sounds like you're saying is the hospital takes that person  but at the nexus between them and the prosecuting attorney in seeking the orders proper rights and you lock three different things they're all under color of law and it is here is your argument of being under color state is under the law under the right of the top of our free if you want me to write it i can well i think it varies depending upon the function i mean we know in the prison doctor case for example the state can't immunize itself or or immunize doctors it hires simply by my privatization and i'm not sure the statement that you have started with is should be taken quite as broadly the acknowledge there exceptions you characterize them as rare but i think it matters depending upon what the activity actually is yes judge let's talk about what their function w that's what they did they they did not have any constitutional obligation to provide evaluation and treatment services that wasn't what they were doing that wasn't their established you and it  was pointed out earlier this is always been there they've allowed these facilities to operate and they've allowed private actors to operate them and they've drawn a distinction in the law between public and private agencies and doing so but in terms of the function could mr austin walk away he he he he could not walk away but a lot of this is i think what's lost in a lot of this designated mental professional and there's no evidence that we had any cooperation or interaction with that person and then he went to quit me detained by order of the superior court he wanted to be released he wanted a jury trial in the prosecutor was very much involved it threatened the lawsuit and at some point dairy your client and the prosecutor talked about this what to do with this guy because he wanted to be released they were concerned perhaps about liability on our sure there's at least that on the record is there not they they certainly communicated with the prosecutor which they had to you i a function of the law whether they were private or public law didn't allow them to use a different attorney to to consult regarding up in session however prosecutor didn't draft addition and he certainly was not part of any mental health team in pa and that formulated the judgments medical judgments that led my clients to make the decisions  did regarding evaluation and treatment and whether release was safe or appropriate so it was he was acting as an attorney by law to handle them and he communicated with station should be continued or dropped and i think that's very clear from the record so that it may well be the case that he's not responsible for medical judgments but i don't think the argument is that he's responsible for a medical judgment the argument is that the fact that the prosecutor and only the prosecutor thank you now soul for and he's a county official suggested this may be a public function if you're going to hold somebody at least past the initial point can't be described as simply evaluation why isn't the fact the law requires it to be the prosecutor that goes as counsel or somebody else itself suggests that this is a public function well civil law proceeding and it's the involuntary treatment ag that rides that the prosecutor has any involvement and so the fact that the prosecutor is dealing interfacing with the court interfacing with mr ross and the attorney doesn't change the essential from my clients who again are evaluating and treating they have no ability to order mr ross into being voluntarily committed only the court or the mange he can do that and whether they whether they use the prosecutor because they were hired by law or whether they had used a private attorney if the law permitted it was which it does and that would that change their well i respectfully judge i don't think it's all that her that our medical director had another job or he worked for another facility that was operated by the state because that was the very same same same location right  exactly the same occasion as as was pointed out earlier it's a rental property on the grounds as rented by my client's private actor as regards the attorney's involvement again because your honor the jensen situation we have a public private mental health team where there are public doctors and mental health professionals on a quote mental health team along with the f dr robbins there's nothing like that here mr nichols is not a doctor or a mental health professional he's an attorney he's an avid the other thing is and i wish i would have pointed this out in the brief but dr robin signed  it here you had these cork in this court county designated no health professional it sounds a little bit like dr rob dr robbins was a private contracts i trust who was under hours away from our facility we know interaction think that russians should be committed for seventy two hours under an involuntary commitment rawson would not have gotten the your facility correct that's right and  public mental health facilities and public and the private sector here there was nothing like well good respect i could be there earlier but in connection with the petition for the ninety day commitment was the record your honor may have been reading from the district court decision but under no review we have a lot of notes and clinical records from our facility that he was threatening in that he was