correct those rulings and allow mister hucks to return below and continue pursuing his meritorious claims and specifically in today's argument i'd like to address three points st the dismissal of the excessive force claims under the elements of assault under oklahoma law this ruling was incorrect for two reasons st it improperly expanded hack and nd it failed to apply the liberal pleading standards  travel i don't want you to take your time if you don't have it right there just move on we'll look for receipt i do i do have it it's here it is it says chris harding approaches you know yarborough's car with his gun drawn ordering me to place my hands on the dash which i did chris harding opened my door and began removing me from the car once out of the car chris harding begun trying to take me to the police car without telling me why it was containing me chris harding didn't try to place handcuffs on me so i pulled away from him like what are you doing chris harding and james rb become wrestling with me chris harding then pushed me between both cars and yelled for james or b to taser me causing me to drop to the ground and hit my head on the ground repeatedly and left me laying on my stomach not there that was on that leg i remember that language in the in the in the pleadings but that doesn't specifically say what he alleged as to when the arrest occurred i guess he says i up to the court to decide when my reading to leave was was taken away from me is that your point so we can just we can then decide ok was if we leave at the time he was tase the st time or the nd or when he was taken down when he was we met the car we have so ear point is simply that's up to us to decide when he was arrested if i understand your honor's question correctly i think the answer is yes i think the answer reports ruling here was really wrong for two reasons the facts leading up to the excessive force don't really matter for purposes of heck and the reason there is because mister hookes could be wrong about those facts and still win so you wouldn't have the specifically alleged that he did not resist arrest that directly contradicted his conviction but that this court held that the district court improperly applied back and the reason is because he could have been wrong about that allegation and still won in other words even if he did resist arrest even if he assaulted opposition in the process tell us there was a roll up the car rolled up his car window on the officer that would have only entitled officers to use reasonable forc needs and this core like most circuits in the country have recognized different types of deliberate indifference claims there's different deliberate indifference to medical needs deliberate indifference or failure to protect failure to intervene and just it looks to me like our analysis in strain would apply more broadly than you honor i i would not read it strain quite so broadly i think strain was careful to limit both its holding and its reasoning to the medical delivery in different contexts and i have some specific language i can i can point to the court said quote we hold that deliberate indifference to pretrial detainees serious medical needs includes both an objective and a subjective component and quote and it's reasoning was similarly narrow it said kingsley turned on considerations unique to excessive force claims whether the use of force amounted to punishment the deliberate indifference cause of action does not relate to punishment but rather safeguards a priest trial detainees access to adequate medical care that deliberate indifference doesn't involve the misconduct the affirmative misconduct of the officers it involves the officers deliberate decision not to stop misconduct by others  the inadequate medical assistance hard for me to see any difference between that and the failure to protect a inmates from violence by another prisoner the a violation the violence is not by the officer of the by the the the liability is because the officer fails to protect some wrongdoing by someone else and isn't that the main commonality between context and reg a lot of where he was just taking issue with the course of treatment here we're dealing with something where a it's conceivable that a jail guard could punish an inmate through excessive force directly or indirectly as the case here possibly by not doing anything when any man is getting attacked and i think the on balance th circuit addressed this and castro and i'd like to just read that a quick quote they said excessive force applied directly by an individual jailer and force applied by a fellow inma cause the same injuries both physical and constitutional jailers have a duty to protect pretrial detainees from violence at the hands of other inmates just as they have a duty to use only appropriate force themselves and they're getting at here the excessive force and the failure to protect contacts are similar in that you force is being dispensed whether or not it's officer doing it or whether or not it's officer allowing someone else to do it and that's very different than the medical context that the court address and strain and if there if there are no other questions on that point i'd like to briefly turn your honor on that's ok you can use your time on your next issue i'd like to briefly address the reported noted in their report just just how bad it was deputy leader said i observed a large pool of blood underneath mister x as had inmate hooks was unable to breathe due to the amount of blood coming from his mouth and  nose captain hardin said his face was covered in blood a pool of blood on the floor just under his head he was making noises if you were struggling to breathe and several officers were holding him to assist him in maintaining an open airway and despite the fact that mister hucks was being within an inch of his life the district court still shut the courthouse doors on him and to do so it improperly drew two inferences in the movement favor and as a stand alone knows on summary judgment all reasonable inferences should have been drawn mister hookes his favor specifically the district court held that the video showed that quote mister timothy never approached the pod office window closely enough to see the attack but the video doesn't show the whole pod the video only we agree with you we say the interpreting the facts and the like most favorable to your client don't you still have a problem with cars nation and with whether a reasonable juror would could find the twenty eight seconds is not a reasonable response time and the entire attack here twenty eight secs no your honor and i also just slightly disagree with the what about whether he could have seen what happened because there was someone in the pub came over within tamar range and saw what happened is there any toki could have seen what happened if he was not if he was in the but not with him camera range because there's a difference between just hearing some commotion and seeing what's going on well i think this is why it's important to note that the video doesn't show the whole pod we don't know what the other windows show that the regular unit isn't it pretty indicative if the if someone in the came to the part of  the within kemmerer a nj to see what was going on does that suggest that you had to be in that position to see what was going on i don't believe so your honor i think that the video doesn't show the whole po and if i may just i see that my time has run out if i may just answer your question that video doesn't show the whole pod and i think if we were to make the conclusion that you're implying here which is that you could have all that it so he could have only seen it if you walked at that spot is to draw inferences in his favor and i think the inference should be drawn in mr hookes as a favor which is that you could see that spot from other places in the pocket we don't even have pictures showing what the whole populace looks let's take certain allegations as mistaken and kind of excised those from the analysis and take other allegations as true if force is one way to be kind of a mixed bag and inverts th specific about that because mister brookings read from the complaint sounded pretty reasonable to assume that he was subdued when some of the later  just that the allegation that force was used after he was subdued is or the that theory is contradicted by allegations in the complaint i did not hear that from mister brooking's read reading of the complaint so point that out what i'm saying is it clear to me that i may have missed that the allegations were quite consistent with his being subdued he's on his he's already been ta that respect if we hold men on just those two sentences and we utter it to late we early eliminate the prior sentences then it becomes a closer question my point would be  dollars sentences in fact i counted nine sentences that form the narrative of the version of events set forth by plaintiff so plaintiff once the court to delete those st six sentences all of them and focus on a claim under attack and then have three sentences or one set that is consistent with the claim under their your honor and in looking at those few sentences i think there might be an argument for that my  if it is an all or none proposition you win but it's not an organ position though i would agree that it's not an all or none proposition your honor however to the to the extent that plaintiff relies on martinez i think it's i think it's that objective way under reason a standard may be applied to an excessive force claim since kingsley several courts have heard similar arguments and the th circuit declined to extend kingsley to claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs the rd th eight and now the th circuits have all right rejected king's exact location to a claim for a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs which limits it to an excessive force claim and additionally the stream court relied on the very nature of deliberate indifference as well as the definition of the word deliberate which includes an name because he's the officer that ran to the rescue and he was the officer that showed up on the scene of the gang fight and stopped he's the officer that immediately showed up and arrested the wrong doers and he did it in less than half a minute the fact of the matter is is that our pods on each floor of a cell contain a pod monitoring booth and a non contact officer is in that pod monitoring booth before camera videos that we provided to the district court clearly indicated that the only person in the pod was a caucasian officer starting to talk he's african american so there's no possible way the video gets it wrong as to who is where on the floor well let me get this one for just a minute the we have testimony from mister hookes that he actually saw officer atoki in the pod and doesn't that you've got a conflict in the evidence you've got mister officer atoki saying i wasn't there you've got i saw you there and you've got a video that doesn't show the entire pod wasn't the district court required to view the facts in the light most favorable to mister oakes testimony and say that officer talk and call it in on the radio which brought mister atoki are i'm sorry a sergeant took it to the scene and then mister hookes admitted in his own briefing that it took twenty seconds to get through the security doors to the pod and so that explains exactly why from the time you see the cook asian officer in the video that you also then see sergeant atoki appearing on the video  the logbook produced by mister the hooks that he obtained to discover show that mr jokey was not signed into the pod on that day the testimony here is the issue here is we have a statement under oath and and summary judgment you've got to accept that unless there's just irrefutable evidence to the contrary well then and  you've got pretty pretty strong evidence to the contrary that you've got to establish to us that it's irrefutable or that it's irrelevant in some way and i say irrelevant some way that's why i asked specifically who could see what four cameras showing the pod i thought to order the pod that was not within camera raid one of the cameras does not show the entire od one of the cameras shows the other side of the pod we have four camera views available on this video and when you look at all the cameras together yes been see the entire you can see that i want to make sure i am using the right terminology the place where the guard was who saw what happened that's called what pod monitoring look at the booth so if you look at all one person in that physically yes there could be more than one person in the booth is there any evidence here that that was a possibility or is that against the raids or because he wasn't signed in to the you will take the position that the record is just undisputed booth during this entire period and that person could not have been a toki because the skin color is that right and because atoki appears on the video within thirty seconds a bit of the other officer appearing in the pod seeing the incident because you are x twenty seconds to get through the pod security doors so so if you're leaving the booth what would you have to do to get from the booth to the floor you'd have to go out in the hall come in through the security doors which are very large heavy steel doors that have to open up and i'm cian no human can move them it takes twenty seconds for them to cycle it's a it's a two door as i cycle the outer door opens you enter the before there's a door open to get into the cellar yes from the hall so door is in the hall there's no interest in the thank you your honor i'd like to began by at picking up from mister a he left off the cameras do not show the entire pod minoring to you and i would encourage the panel to go watch the video feeds and you can see for yourself you can not see the entire and also mister hagi is is inserting facts that are not in the record we don't have record facts about there is no testimony elicited as to how long it would take to get from the   they're trying to turn a statement that mister hooks made in his brief into an admission which is him inappropriate for a number of reasons it's also just irrelevant and even if even if all of this is means that it took you could have been in the booth up until that point which means he would have seen the entire st assault so all of these actions mean nothing i'm not sure why are so many knocking about them talking about deliberate indifference you don't expect