good morning your honor is jennifer clark for appellant in this to judge her denied defendants qualified immunity because they sent a letter to plaintiff's current employer stating truthfully that the new york state department of education ha commenced an investigation it was an investigation your honor the letter is truthful that they had opened an investigation into him and they requested that he moral character investigation for someone holding a state educators license there is no good cause requirement that it does say that there would be an indication and the indication that point that defendants were working with was that he had been hired  district on the heels of his suspension for sexual grooming but your honor i think whether or not the investigation whether the investigation was properly opened or not under the state reg is neither here nor there when it comes  to procedural due process or to defend it's in title meant to qualified immunity or that's true which is a creature of due process your honor and so words a few responses to that your honor first it was an investigation so to the extent that that what your honor is picking up on is that by by stating it was an investigation they were saying something false that's not true  it was an investigation that was immediately closed when his when they saw his employment to rails and saw that the question had not been asked and therefore he had no duty to disclose it so it was an investigation that was open and closed immediately thereafter your honor but it was no your honor they did not tell anybody that it was closed and with regards to how that relates to defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity it's much more standard practice among investigators to not loop back and tell whoever has received a subpoena or any other forms of investigation that it has and close so there you know to the contrary there there would be no no precedent for that there certainly a reasonable government official would not be under the impression that constitutional law required them to to loop back and close because thousands of subpoenas and other investigate tools are issued every day without anyone looking back and saying that the investigation has closed without incident so certainly there's no clearly established right to that kind of thing and just to get to this question as it seems you know i'm not i'm not sure precisely which is is concerning your honour's but  the stigma plus claim with regards to the stigma part of it there was no false statement it was an investigation and with regards to to the plus part the plus was so far removed from the  this case well this is that the the summary judgment stage so it would return to the district court for for further proceedings there what do you get out of a statement plus supposing the point of wh damage but since since your honour's seem to see a potential problem with the with the stigma plus claim i just want to reiterate that the best the best argument that plaintiff has put forth would defamation by implication because it implies that perhaps there was something done clearly established case law of this court does not support in the stigma of defamation by implication claim if you look to this where there was a a public statement released at the at the same time as a educator was terminated saying that he was unable to provide for the basic safety of the children in his care and therefore he had to be fired here  a letter that makes a truthful statement i believe what your honor is is picking up on is that the statement implies that perhaps there was wrongdoing but any opening of an investigation could potentially imply that there had been wrongdoing that's why an know well in this case your honor what the district court relied upon in denying qualified immunity were two other district court cases that had found that it was that certain extreme circumstances could perhaps lead to an effective revocation of a state issued license in which someone has a property interest here we have no no actual  you're aware of out of the circuit that would guide this would guide the investigators determination of whether they should or should not have done what they did of their motion for summary judgment on their qualified immunity claim what would what would be the clear what case would you have had the investigators look at to determine what was clearly established synthesis going on in the sense that we lose his license here was a was and he just will substitute teacher who was a position well within the scope of rights that new york state gives to an individual they give them a license it also includes the meaningful statement plus it i think it answers it answers both both questions the letter itself i have in front of me it's on page one thirty of the appendix it said it says this office has commenced investigation against randy a much pursuant to department authority to investigate such matters as set forth in eight new york c r section eighty three point two i'm requesting that you provide the office with the documents paraphrasing there at the end part eighty three of new york r r says that an investigation may only be opened upon information the possession of any person indicating that an individual holding a teaching certificate certificate has been convicted of a crime or has committed an act which raises a reasonable question as to the individual's moral character so when the department of education sends its letter to the principal or the star the superintendent weaver at middleburg central school district and says there is an investigation pursuant to part eighty three of new york investigators want to do a prosecutor when somebody calls that this guy who just got suspended for a year for grooming a couple girls when he was a high school is applied to my school district i don't think they know about it to be disclosed to the  another related due process issue in this mr mudge was he went through a hearing he was as as the record indicates was convicted of grooming charge he not actually had sex with students while they were in high school but we waited till a month after they graduated right for both of them fair enough yes your honor he he was what went through a hearing he received a sense it was a one year suspension he served that suspension and that suspension of his license his license was reinstated so  should have every right to continue using his license after he served that suspension what you're not saying that the school board or the hiring authority looking examining who's going to come in as a teacher in that district doesn't have the right to know what bow suspension i'm sorry who would have you are not saying that a hiring authority subsequent look considering his application substance subsequent to suspension doesn't have a right to know about the very thing for which he was suspended or not at all your honor i have actually judged drone he's question what's somebody to do when there's an inquiry about hey did you know about that well there's a there's a substantial difference between the investigator saying hey by the way i heard you you know hired randy mudge did you know that he has a cell invested in it as opposed to saying we've opened an investigation which is based on information that raises a question of moral character all circles are were investigation because it has a technical meaning use the word inquiry we are considering opening  investigation and implies that there's a new facts and especially in light of mr mudge is previous suspension the implication is then of course that he's done something similar to what he was  parole where an individual is granted parole and subsequent to his parole terms being set they tried to alter the parole terms and that is that alteration of terms that that creates the deprivation it doesn't have to be a complete  thread this needle if i'm going to make the same corey well i think it's important to remember that the investigators in very well a finder of fact could find it a trial that the investigators knew what they were doing when they use that specific language because it does imply all of that  that baggage that may not be apparent to someone who's not familiar with that with the system but the idea that opening an investigation and specifically referencing those regulations implies that there's that they've received some information that  places the moral character of mr mudge in question and you don't think they reasonably could have concluded that the moral character was in question and they want to find out whether he's passed that information on to the next hiring  court and is going to have his felony conviction touted to the jury as a reason to question that person's credibility that yes i understand that his moral character would be in question based on  record shows that she knew about the allegation and it was the investigation the implication that he had done something else that led the that he let her in the school board to not renew his contract something else  also there is an affidavit from one of the board members robert harris i believe that's how you pronounce it that states that the state investigators influence was was part of the reason that they did not renew the contract for m  that that he had this prior suspension for this grooming charge so it would serota says david says that the board was told that the district should not be able going him because of his suspension which is i think the question just because i was asked is was there anything other than saying we know this guy's been suspended before for this growing stuff did she say something else that we're investigating him for another incident for example i don't believe there's any allegation that someone said specifically something else there is there is some testimony in that the heritage as affidavit and or heroin affidavit and the mr mudge also repeats us in his  you so your honor had asked for a case that would guide the investigators and i don't have a wonderful answer because there is no point case law from this circuit or the court there is a a summary order that  that that appellee cited in his brief to this court which is the first is johnson case where you have three attempts with identical charges to get the seam cheech or educator after two unsuccessful tries in this court found that that head overstepped the bounds of reasonable investigation or administrative prosecution but i don't unfortunately have anything better than that because i am not sure that there is anything out there no clearly established right to use one's license clear from investigation and the police states that that there is a right to use it free from unreasonable investigation or on reasonable interference but there is no clearly established case