honor i would like to introduce yourself for the record player excuse me may it please the court hollerin thurman on behalf of nancy schwartz i would like to spend six minutes of my time on addressing the court's first order six minutes of my time addressing the court's second order and i'd like to reserve three minutes for a bottle of the court will well we'll do our best but we'll ask what we ask that you know we take whatever time it takes communications genine him mr parker due process and by elating miss words is right for the fourteenth amendment and i would argue that the district court absolutely did air the district court and evaluating this claim cites the kim the city of santa clara this is an unpublished opinion coming out of the ninth district i'm sorry the northern district of california westlaw citation two zero three four seven seven four in which the district court granted summary judgment alleged that they are allowed to determine on summary judgment whether conduct shocks the conscience that may be determined by the district court on summary judgment we would argue that not only is that he's in a political but it also there is no there is no place in kim the city of santa clara where they specifically state that the court has that authority in kim the city of santa clara the court does make a determination on whether or not the conduct conscient shocking but they do not state that they have the authority to do that this would go against a decade's worth of jurisprudence guiding the standard of summary judgment on review by the circuit court undersell a text the court must regard as true the opposing parties of an unsupported by affidavits or other evidence yury material and the court must draw all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party also sell a text for seventy seven us three twenty four with regards to the actual evidence that although there may be no actual direct evidence there are several inferences that can be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party here often surveyed does state that he had nothing to do with raising bail however the deposition of tyler fitch e c f number one thirty nine at three you know three  states that his bill was raised by ex parte phone conversation with the judge in two thousand and nine in the same manner under moreland the las vegas metro police department one fifty nine f third three sixty five three seventy two this is a purpose to cause harm not related to the purpose of the arrest they should have also considered the deposition of mr achatz and the chief of police of the city of susan bell and they said that since his deposition was incorrectly cited as documentary want twenty one that they would not consider it however it is a documentary one twenty two and he does state in his deposition under oath that there was a custom that he was aware of that on numerous occasions police officers did call the judge personally to raise bail by x party means counsel i'd appreciate your turning to the conversation issue if you w if the bail was raised in an improper manner how are the damages that are claimed here attributable in any way to those events to the city of susan boyle's events or to the counties of either doctor giving the benefit of the doubt he was sent to the hospital and he spent a month in the hospital before he passed away so i guess what i'm having difficulty seeing in this long unfortunate chain of events where any of the damages that is his illness or his demise were caused by this very small slice of time when he was in the jail yes  honor we have several strong arguments in support of that it was a disputed fact whether or not he was actually seen by a doctor in the first few weeks of incarceration here here's the problem and let me make maybe more specific in my question  is i saw the record and maybe i'm wrong about this i didn't see a single affidavit from a doctor or medical professional saying if we had been able to treat this individual sooner a week sooner he would have survived or he wouldn't have been ill or he would have not suffered yes your honor the surgical consultation with dr brock this is after mr parker had requested numerous times and stated on numerous medical forms that he wasn't pain that the jail officials ignored his surgical consultation after he was rushed to the hospital and a life threatening way states that the patient began suffering severe abdominal pains in the lower abdomen yesterday this is that l s e are page one hundred this this raises an inference of material fact a genuine because what it sounds like to me is once he experienced the severe pain they sent him to the hospital they sent him within hours of that severe pain and that medical records since nothing about whether he would have been less you know or would have survived had he come in hours earlier or  on his health care services request forms however on august third two thousand and nine he does complain of pain in the lower stomach and on october ninth two thousand and nine he also complains of times by a doctor's assistant and sort of a doctor and if he had been evaluated by a doctor sooner then it's arguable that he could have received lifesaving treatment before filling out all these medical forms that they repeatedly ignored his requests of pain his mentions of pain and a lower abdominal pain on three separate medical forms and it wasn't until he pressed the emergency button and he was seen by it was correctional supervisor are one four three that he make he marked that he was in pain on ten nine and yet he wasn't taken to the hospital and tell they say hours later you know it's a genuine issue of material fact as to how much time delay there was joan schmidt says i was somewhat aware of parker's abdominal problems and heart condition these conditions were consideration in evaluating the seriousness of the situation and this was not until he had pressed the emergency button to call for help in the time he pressed the emergency button and he was sent to the hospital what was the record show the record shows that he was sent to the hospital almost immediately however it wasn't until he pressed that pain button or he wasn't as healthy the move  what's your i guess best argument that the evidence or evidence that you can highlight that the medical care he received was substandard or absolutely your honor as i tried to state earlier the surgical consultation with dr brock after he did arrive at the hospital says the patient began suffering severe abdominal pain in the lower abdomen yesterday so right there that raise as an inference of material fact that he could have been transported to the hospital at least a day sooner second of all he goes on to say and also states in him being incarcerated because you couldn't make it he would not have been incarcerated during this period of time and would have gotten medical treatment yes your honor that's one by the officers for under this order restraining order yes and that's and that's further that's further evidence that they should have been aware of his medical conditions nancy schwartz says that he had visibly lost over forty pounds when she saw him in jail had he not been incarcerated where is the medical or other evidence that the course of his disease would have been more favorable in terms of yes or no we believe that should have been decided by a jury because john m know states and has deposition that there is no record that a medical director ever prescribe parker a special diet during his some to september october two thousand and harsh the ration this is an l s d are one nineteen also on august third of two thousand and nine parker just throwing this out for argument's sake that the defendants were not indifferent india did not deliberately indifferent to his his medical needs and therefore mr parker's constitutional rights were not his constitutional rights were not violated can she claim i'm sure she win on the loss of familial association i guess how can her due process rights which i think is what you're  alleging have been violated mr parker's due process rights were not well there is a constitutional protected liberty interest under her now by and through colonel ridge the city bridge press police to prevail on a fourteenth amendment claim arising out of the lo issues an order like you did it would you divide this in a seven and a half and seven and a half pla that way we'll know here when we are when we're  have that's great ok ok i think the court in the questions that were addressed to mrs schwartz's attorney really do highlight the fact that in this particular record there is zero evidence on the causation issues i think i do know the court needs to get there on this case i made of blue dress that if i have time on the liability part of it but even assuming liability which is i think what the court is looking at some of the questions what is the evidence that anything that anybody did at the county at the jail either did or didn't do in some way contributed to or caused any damage in particular the death of  mr parker the fact is that they were at the lower court level they had no expert testimony they had no medical testimony all the doctors were deposed the doctors and the nurse at the at the  jail the doctors at the hospital a number of them were deposed nothing in the record that they could come up with reflected that anybody that had any medical training suggested that hey if you have gotten earlier treatment if you had gotten different treatment  they have come would have been different the fact is he's a sick guy in jail and the record reflects that the jail folks and the and the officers in the susan bill police department for that matter knew this guy pretty well he'd been in and out of jail they knew his medical condition it's somewhat ironic i suppose but his treating doctor in the jail dr meadows was the guy was his doctor since he was seven years old it's a small town he knew this guy he knew all the problems they had since he was really young in terms of his heart condition so i think the record is replete with let's talk about the familial so ca and then i'm just trying to figure out if your county has a policy concerning when family members of inmates are contacted because when there's an emergency and then also inform if they're taken to the hospital no there's not a policy about that the policy is that if someone is taken to the hospital they can't have visitation for the for the reasons that are set forth in the record so i guess i'm trying out why it was this source not informed of parker's hospitalization in october i mean is that just something you wouldn't do i it's it's just something that wasn't done i know that they would necessarily do it or not do it it just wasn't done i think that this the thing that's telling about john and i was going to get back to the liability part the first mention of undershirt minoan this in the fourteen pages of statement of balance brief is on about page fourteen where he's informed by the jail staff behave mr parker was taken to a renowned hospital in reno that's the first time he's involved in this he's not involved in the incarceration of him he's not involved in the medical treatment of mr parker and what does he do the record reflects that his only involvement in this case is is when when ward's sees him at a class i think it was and says hey what's going on with m haven't gotten any word from him for a while and he says well geez you know he's in bad shape he's in renown hospital i'll tell you what i'll do i will contact the different term me and see if we can get him released on his own recognizance which is just paperwork really because he's not going anywhere because he's dying and he tells her and this is in the record in our brief that we specifically highlighted he tells mr schwartz if that doesn't work i will take you to the hospital because i can get you in to see him now everything he also testified that when he when someone is being booked into the prison that the policy and there they're very sick like no and you admit that everybody knew he was here but there's no evidence that there is zero evidence in the record that this fellow was sick in the sense that he needed immediate medical attention when he was booked what with these letters indicate he's got this this problem w slowly incarcerated now it is in say should not be incarcerated and they wouldn't be able to do that anyway the the fact is that when he showed up the policy is if someone is in need of medical treatment they at that time in booking they go to the they go to the hospital to get cleared he simply filled out a form and they knew that he had these one historical medical problems so them keep an eye on him but when he was booked he was not in the in the record here he was not in need of emergency medical care at that time nor did he need that care for quite some time you made that determination made in terms that he didn't need care was made by the intake staff and by the purse and by the it's really important the question familiar so c h and you're right if there's no due process while ation is not going to be a familial for parker there's none there's no familial association violation claim for mrs schwar but keep in mind there there is no evidence of any other inmate that ever was that had deliberately indifference to his medical care there was no policy there's no evidence any policy practice there's no evidence of  claim whatsoever even if mr parker died because he didn't get proper care in the jail and john men know was not involved in this and he as a supervisor ha will hear next from the city's council jim wyatt for the city of susan ville on page one of the reply brief there is the sentence instead of ensuring that parker received medical attention a susan filan law enforcement officer contacted the presiding judge x party in violation of california law and raise the bond amount no way five fold to ensure that parker could not secure a bond that statement is completely false summary judgment the city argued that the only applicable theory of why ability gets the city was under menow that the first prong of menow would be dead in a fight a constitutional violation that the arrest was lawful and pursuant to a valid court order and i will note to the court that that is conceded by the appellant in her brief that the arresting officer was not presented with and did not ignore a medical emergency requiring immediate treatment and finally that the susan vale police department took no action to increase mr parker's bail amount those that is what was argued to the district court after a thorough briefing the district court determined that point of had no admissible evidence which would warrant a trial on the issue of a constitutional violation so we never got past the first problem and now we do not in any way wish understate the loss of a life a significant loss to the plaintiff but the plaintiff fun necessarily complicates this matter for this court because the issues the fact the issues are compare her confused because of the many facts that have been presented to this court as an example in the opening brief the statement of facts from the plaintiff from the scuse me is ten pages long the first five pages have nothing to do with this arrest it is an arrest in incarceration that occurred three more three months before the subject of arrest five pages of arrest and medical treatment only one page of the ten relates to the september twenty second arrest that's on page nine the reply brief has the first sentence that i read to you it is completely false so there has been a lot of information presented which confuses the issues let me ask you though specifically about the question of raising bail  means of expert a contact it seemed to me that there was some at least circumstantial evidence that that has occurred if it does that doesn't mean that it's necessarily a policy or practice or that it was done in a particular case but there's that certainly does come across it occurred before and it occurred in that arrest on the night and some of the facts that are before the court will give the court a better feeling i believe that he said do you disagree that obtaining a bail unhandsome an ex party without a hearing violates california law absolutely no before any person who is arrested for any of the following crook crimes it may be released on bail in an amount that is either more or less than the amount contained in the schedule of the veil of for the offense or may be released on his or her  own recognizance a hearing shall be held in open court before the magistrate or a judge but it says specifically except as provided in subdivision ie subdivision e says notwithstanding subdivision a judge or magistrate pursuant to section twelve sixty nine c may with respect to a bailable felony offense or misdemeanor offense of violating a domestic violence order increase bail to an amount exceeding that set forth in the bail schedule without a hearing provided an oral or written declaration of facts justifying the increase is presented under penalty of perjury b really have that here you have no evidence that's the point though you know i would assume that if there was a record in an affidavit by the officer to the hearing that's a fact in this case right you have that's not a fact in this case it isn't well there's a fact that the bail was increased but we don't know by the evidence does not demonstrate my home the only evidence you have is that there was a note in a jail record says per the court that's all that's it so if that's not a triable issue of fact the susan vell police department had nothing to do with the increase of the under california law if there was a restraining order to increase the amount of mayo ex parte that's what the statute provides i'm not saying that's applicable i'm just saying that this idea that it was somehow against the law that the susan hill police department on prior occasions had made a call to the court which there is evidence they did but that's three months earlier i'm saying in this case we move for summary judgment and judge  found that there was no evidence in this case that the city of susan valle increased the bail or made any effort to increase the bail and there was no evidence that the officer who arrested was confronted by an emergency medical situation so all the arguments about and there are some false statements in the reply brief as  officer on the case called the judge and requested an increase in parker's bail that's not a reasonable inference and that's not an inference that anybody would allow a juror to make in a case and that's what judge england is saying is that you don't have enough the court and that did ensure that that he would have a prolonged detention you have no evidence that you don't know if his mother's the richest person in the world and could have posted that bail you have no evidence that she wasn't a bail bondsman herself you have to think that's very very speculative but what i'm saying is there's no evidence of plaintiff didn't present any evidence in opposition to the and they can present circumstantial evidence they have to present if somebody says i'm in jail because i can't make bail you have to present some evidence to there has to be something presented to the it's not ok so i so you're i don't want to have that mr parker was a millionaire and that's why i ended up in this position now he ended up in a position because he routinely violated a domestic restraining order that's how he ended up in a position and look what happened that before the bail was increased in the earlier amount and what did he do he went right back out violated the restraining order so i feel i'm not unsympathetic to the situation it's just that from a purely evidence the question that was presented here and i would like to paraphrase it or change it slightly and i'm over my time so i'm sorry if you want me to stop i will finish your current statement and then you will the district court erin granting summary judgment to the city of susan vale on miss schwarz's claim that the city obtained the bail enhanced meant through an expert to telephone conversation with judicial officials the district court did not air because there was no like to begin my my time by discussing once again the the evidence the causation issue with regards to the county there is evidence that the prolonged detention without adequate medical care did lead to or contribute to michael parker stuff the washoe county district health department issued the certificate of death this is available at l s e our zero three one it says in part that he died of an cardiac arrest as a consequence of an acute bacterial endocarditis he was evaluated by a medical assistant numerous times before he saw dr meadows and the and the physician's assistant missed the bacterial infection numerous times until he became so ill that he was rushed to the hospital where he later died in addition although there was no expert medical testimony in the depositions this does county at page seven it says it says it was not my intent to discourage any legal actions against mr parker but to give my medical opinion that incarceration would not be in his best medical interest this raises an inference that their own county doctor who was familiar with the way that the medicine was practiced within the jail could have made his medical condition worse which it did which eventually led to his death and there was another letter from another doctor dr descend which stated something similar but this is a very persuasive piece of evidence this is a very strong inference that the practices of the county jail did contribute to mr parker's death and that there was a deliberate indifference and with regards to the issue that the city raised with regards to p c twelve seven point one this was not a domestic violence restraining order this was a protective order with regards to stalking and driving by her house there is no evidence on the record that this pertain to a domestic violence restraining order percent to twelve seventy point