let me begin by thanking everyone for being willing to do this on a telephone basis i know it's a little awkward but you have to enable us to you to re summary judgment by the trial judge and i believe that was an error for numerous reasons i believe that the evidence supported a practice or custom of the county of kern that resulted in deliberate indifference to persons with  serious medical needs and specifically in this case and with the evidence was presented to persons who were suicidal and i believe you can re are you referring to well the the there is a there are several elements of it number one you have a cell without a surveillance camera number two you have a suicide cell which as opposed to the other suicide cells in the jail one half of it is completely obscured the rd element of i'll say that the customer practice is the placement of the sandwich by all the evidence had been there for as long as anybody can remember in the condition where the line was cut and i  gets to a conclusion that this was not also a customer practice that resulted in deliberate a a a policy because it isn't a policy it's a practice or custom and castro defines practice or custom as any permanent widespread well settled practice or custom that constitutes a standard operating procedure of the county and i think in this particular instance placing placing a means of being able to commit suicide within eighteen inch eighteen inches of the suicide cell that mr campos was in on that constitutes a standard operating procedure when you consider that the fan was there because what in and you have to end and the fan was there for the convenience of the officers it was pointed at the desk it was placed there not only because the plug was in the pipe chase as it's called but because the door would be opened and the cool air from the pipe chase in the jail i believe that that rises to a practice or custom and then when you consider that factor with the other factors of the configuration of the jail cell and the and the fact that there was no mental health care there i mean i exhibit ten of my supporting papers to the motion for evaluation matter because we've already evaluated him as being suicidal well i mean it's a situation where i think that may not be directly the cause of the injury in question but it seems to me it's part and parcel of the consideration that this court has to make to make the determination as to whether there already mr garage what evidence is there and he was there for forty eight hours this time is that correct that's approximately correct yes or all right so rested on the a and moved d to  the nd deck the the b deck i guess and into this cell on the on the temp is that correct right for a nd one and on what dates that he had against the bars and did they take him to the hospital to on the th he was he banged himself on against against the wall was taken to the restraint chair and then to the safety cell on the th recommended psychological evaluation ok and then and the aware and and what's what's interesting about you know being taken to the hospital is that when when you were taken to the hospital you were seen for one complaint the one around the one around the corner one of the at least one of them was because in the incident report which is also in in my deck in my in my papers in opposition motion for s judgment there is a statement in the incident report of of a fellow who was in the cell which would be which would i would say share a wall with mr campo cell because what you have to do in order to get to that to the two cells with with loop cameras is you have to enter into a hallway and they're there rather then i'll say facing the desk in the end also a common area that's for us through the court on this thing that certainly would would have been operating the fan would have been operated in violation of anyone's reasonable life safety code i believe i would and we had it that it had been operated for as long as anyone could remember that correct right i mean you know the the evidence is that the th three out of four collier saldana and bath the fan had been in that particular location as long as they had been working in the central receiving facility and th was i mean and they were all fairly new deputies so and they had all been there from the st part of two thousand and thirteen so we're talking about a period of at least six months when that fan was there was being operated with a broken cord and in that particular location eighteen inches away from the cellar mr compass was and do you allege that the two cells that had constant loop cameras only that they were capable of being monitored constantly or that they were monitored constantly they were monitored constantly because the the the monitoring occurs  on another floor in i'll see what i call a control room so they were they were you know somebody sits at a desk somebody watch  well beyond question i had written to guarding the fan are you essentially arguing that these make you make a mistake you sneak jail makes a mistake that becomes a longstanding that it becomes a policy or practice of the operate and you should give deference to jail officials of the adoption and execute execution of policies and procedures you know if cetera so you know i'm not i'm not saying if they make a mistake that rises  to deliberate indifference some not saying that at all because i don't think that's a law i mean that be nice if that was the law because it makes a lot easier for attorneys like me but it's not the law it's what the difference between mistake that goes on for a long time in the place of the same thing because i think when you have when you have a stake that rises to being a substantial risk of serious that it rises to a practice or custom when i think of when i think of policies and i may be thinking that in too simplistic a manner i think i'm thinking of a policy in a a written please support good afternoon everyone i know i think this case has been fairly thoroughly briefed i don't really have any prepared remarks but i wanted to make myself available to answer any questions that the court might well i think that the issue at least my interpretation of it is that if you look at castro you have an element there that you don't have here you know certainly my read of castro and i would agree with m that i think that the physical configuration of a cell such as this can be considered a custom under propre of circumstances for purposes of o'neill what i don't see in this case though which the court found in castro was the deliberate indifference on the part of the policy makers and essentially what we had encountered strobe was a situation where the board of supervisors for the defendant the law enforcement agency actually had in their policy of policy manual requirements that there be greater monitoring was present in the fact pattern additionally the board had adopted the california building code which also required greater visualization and audio monitoring you know and so in castro's at least the way i understand it the court found that by the board the policy makers adopting that those rules it was evidence of their recognition that the increased frequency of or constant visuali was essential you don't have that here there's been no evidence in this case to suggest why those cameras are in the sales that they are versus other ones there there is  that as mr grotto pointed out that the the monitors for those cameras are not even on the same floor they are down on i believe the st floor and this is the rd floor the cell is on 's that's that's correct my understanding is that they are in a control room for lack of a better descriptor and the deputy assigned to that control room has a multitude of duties but the loop cameras are displayed there so that if the deputy wants to they can look at the monitor and see what's going on in the cell but i don't think they sit there and do nothing else but watch the camera so essentially i think i'm sorry go ahead you're on this monitoring is is twice that in a thirty minute period correct that is that is the face to face monitoring the deputies that are on staff on that floor per policy are required to make visual monitoring of the inmates twice at irregular intervals within every thirty minutes and then that is documented in along the logs were also put into evidence as well as the testimony of the four gypsies that worked the night shift and then the morning shift as mr campos was found hanging approximately seven minutes after the morning shift started the morning shift  all i believe it was the st task he had was to face cards count and so he actually visualizes and sees campos had seven o'clock straight up and then sees him again seven minutes later when he's doing the nursing call and at that point campos had moved from the bed and was hanging from the bar of the cell sitting on the floor so my position on the guy had john i'm sorry the previous getting off at seven and i believe bullets all done and his partner in addition to that entry also spoke to him as they were leaving the the deck because the elevator is literally just you know it's in that central area where the desk is and from there you can see into the front part of self so they actually spoke to him again after that last entry by the night shift very well  supervisor acquiescing presence there you know there's there's not you know it it seems that from what we can tell from the evidence and the testimony that was listed in this case  know we don't know how long the fan was there we do know as mr grado said that the fan at least had been there as long as these deputies that testified were working on that i believe there was some testimony that it got moved around but that the location it was in at the time of the incident was where it was normally stored it was used in that location as well as mr grasso said the testimony was that inside the pipe chase that was between the two cells where the fan was is where the electrical outlet was and then there was another one somewhere else on the floor but no you know there is no evidence that i'm aware of that any supervisor saw the fan you know and i know i don't know that it's in evidence but i know that the lieutenant in charge of the facility is not housed on that floor thank you i interrupted you and please proceed with your argument  it's it's somewhat inaccurate because the the fan in question has a large circular base at the bottom and it is that circular base that was eighteen inches away from the cell bars honor the after the incident you know as part of the investigation they did take those measurements and my understanding is that you know you've got this circular base you've got the pole and on top of the pole you have the housing and motor of the fan and from there the cord drapes along or near the pole and so i honestly i don't know how far the the port itself was away from the cell bar but i think it was closer to the thirty six than the eighteen and with that i really don't have anything else to say les all getting to the fan for the moment it was my understanding that this eighteen inch mark because the the actual blades of the fan and or you're protected by this metal type housing court finds that the defendant's leaving of an electric fan with a duct tape cord near a suicide cell at least arguably within reach of a suicidal taney could be considered by a rational trier of fact to be the moving force constitutional issue here if you know i i just look at this case is clear then castro in terms of the policy or the custom and practice because it seems when you bundle everything together you have a custom or practice of deliberate indifference to somebody with a serious medical need and that's exactly what what the cause of the injury