because these officers ignored strong suicidal indicators this is a serious violation of the fourteenth amendment and when viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the balance of police conduct was objective leon reasonable the first point i want to make is not fully briefed in our priest i want to kind of go into it a little further the the standard currently in the circuit is a subjective standard when considering whether or not the conduct is object very recent so the second circuit in two thousand and seventeen said that in order to be consistent with kingsley deliberate indifference under fourteenth amendment must be measured objective leigh and that's the darnell versus pin nero case that's a forty nine of los angeles eight thirty three f three d ten sixty and then most recently in two thousand and eighteen the seventh circuit also adopted the objective standard for failure to protect cases under the fourteenth amendment on cases which you argue are germy into your position and i'm just saying how many cases didn't come out yesterday you know they've been there so if they were post the briefing you know that's really what twenty years even the governing principle so well in this case i think actually the most compelling case if you were to look at it subjectively is actually the jacobs case which is a circuit department and that one is actually cited in our brief and the case is very similar the sheriff had awareness in that case of the suicide risk and his actions showed showed her that she was  suicide risk and that he knew it despite that he gave the deceased a blanket and a towel and unlike this case he actually implemented frequent checks on her which in this case they did not do that and the court found he acted with deliberate indifference to the statistics deceased known which is a very very small jurisdiction but there were numerous articles that have come out in that area in the houston greater houston area talking about suicide by blanket so you know we allege in our in our brief  our petition that they knew that all of these officers knew of these incidents so we make the argument that it should it should actually count and it didn't actually say in the jacobs case that that was what it turned on it just mentioned that that was one of the  and in this case the the the officers gave her a blanket they knew he was suicidal he was yelling out in the cell that he wanted to kill himself they found him on the bridge about to job i mean that was a pretty good indicator that he was suicidal which they gave him a blanket which they knew and they were trained to know that that was something you do not do to a suicidal it and mean and then they took away his shoelaces which obviously shows that they had the knowledge that he was suicidal and they had knowledge of prior incidents in the area maybe not the same jail but in the area so that is very similar to  the statement about how there was no monitoring that occurred and the quote is no monitoring occurred either in person or through the video camera and i wonder how you can kind of square that statement with the cell observing mr silvis with a blanket that officer melton visited and promised a cigarette so how can the briefing statement that no monitoring occurred be squared with w seems to be multiple instances of monitoring reflected in your plea to believe that no adequate monitoring so perhaps that would be a better statement you know that the fact that he was not in any special cell for suicidal inmates he was given a blanket he was not given you know speed wasn't monitored consistently was a lack of monitoring it was simply in your view an adequate monitor and that was the same situation in jacobs that that she wasn't adequately modern birds and but in jacobs she didn't commit suicide right away it actually was several days later in this case it was actually only a couple of hours es when they're aware of a substantial and significant risk to suicide and disregard it and in this case they were there's no way around that they were aware of significant risk of suicide i mean he he was valid to jump of this bridge is what i mean if you've ever driven over the team a bridge it is a huge bridge you would not live through that he was about to jump he wanted to die he said he was going to die he he made every indication that he wanted to kill himsel if they let him in any reasonable officer would have said would have known that there was a significant risk of suicide and in this case even a subjectively measured these officers know that this person was going to  judge pointed out example supreme court and fifth circuit authority that guides this court's decision and which go to the district court in this case i think it's helpful to understand the procedural mechanisms that the district court indulge get to this point the record demonstrates that the district court found that the plaintiffs allegations as to these officers as well as the city in the chief of police were largely conclusory they were  thing that the supreme court condemned and it ball which is simply a formulaic recitation of what a plaintiff thinks they're supposed to say about a constitutional violation devoid of any actual factual allegations intervening period the district court ordered that the city provide over twelve hundred pages of investigative documents videotape of the interactions between the seed and interviews after the fact of the very people who were being sued thus of the record ten thirty nine in ten forty the district court told the palin's coun before the fourth time that he instructed the one of the palace council to amend in an effort to state a claim quote we know what happened we've got video tapes you've got interviews of what happened the facts were of the district judge and pointed out the appellant's continued to make the same basic conclusion restatements some of which as i think judge let's comments have already demonstrated are in themselves contradictory none of pelleas are currently before this court based upon a factual explanation of the conclusion re statements that are made at best these allegations given the greatest would show quote it culpable state of mind and in that regard i would answer the question judge will oppose to palin's counsel if the answer to the court's question released runners question of where do we find the line that governs whether a claim is stated for if fourteenth amendment violation of a denial of medical care in the context of a jail suicide i would submit that the court can look to judge dennis is opinion for the panel and hyatt rich's thomas which was written two years after this instance incident in which the panel unanimously adopted judge dennis opinion that there must be a basis to among other things concluded the defendant's response to the information quote indicates and the subjective intention that occurred as at one seventy eight of this same proposition course this is consistent with the supreme court's decision the year before this incident occurred in taylor versus barak in which the supreme court explained the very problem appellants claim here the pelisse claim here and it's basically is the these individuals knew that mr so this was suicidal they did some things like take the shoelaces like check on him from time to time but they didn't do other things like not give him a blanket the supreme court in taylor versus barges and again marcus excuse me again after this court decided hi explained that the duty under the fourteenth amendment related to a jail suicide is not one to prevent a suicide from occurring but to refrain from being deliberately indifference to a medical need that is indicated b suicidal ideation and there is where the conflicting and conclusionary statements of the appellant's are really their own doing particularly after the district judge gave them four times to try to state a claim appellant's allegations against everyone are essentially the same with the exception of dispatcher well and who is not alleged to have been on the bridge and observed mr silva's suicidal considerations while on the bridge but rather that she heard about them over the radio and that's not disputed but knowing that mr silvis was suicidal on the bridge is of no avail and stating a claim against any of these defendants when the when he gets to the jail there the allegations are that kimball gave him a blanket that they heard him banging on the cell and yelling that he should have jumped and that he would like to do it again tomorrow without an explanation of what it meant interesting lee i'd just heard something that in a rgument that was not written in the brief which was that there were numerous articles about the improper use of blankets but this i would submit to the court is the very type of conclusory statement that it by issues just saying that there are various articles about using blankets is a conclusion restatement had there been such articles they should have been identified with factual allegations identifying those articles but that doesn't even matter because as the judge will it's a question to o counsel pointed out earlier the briefing and the pleadings are rife with contradictions in and of themselves for example as it relates to officer kimball judge hanks pointed out in the record that record ten eight ten eighteen and six sixty four in their own complaint the appellant expressed quote the officer kimball did not think silvis was serious about committing suicide when in the cell is this court's opinion in time and versus manthey which which should the chief judge was on the panel the court made clear that the failure to perceive the risk of a suicide precludes the deliberate indifference that would be citation correct that the court could not discern any more than a few conclusionary statements about dispatcher and that is because there are now again in terms of contradictory statements there's an allegation the dispatcher whalen was trained quote trade not to give a person a blanket that's in reply brief it page thirteen but yet the appellant's fail to acknowledge that whalen did not if they did qualified immunity would require dismissal of that claim appellants continue to at least imply in their briefing that qualified immunity is something that the defendants must prove but this court has been amply clear that the plaintiffs allegations must demonstrate both a colorable claim of a constitutional violation we've already addressed why it does not do that and that that that that conduct itself was so clearly established to be in violation of the constitution or laws of the united states that no reasonable officer could have believed that it was at that time illegal we know that even if this court were to credit the allegations as stating claims against these individuals the law was as here three judge dennis wrote for unanimous panel quote while the law is clearly established the jailers must take measures to prevent inmate suicides once they know of the risk we cannot say that the law is established with any clarity what those measures must be thus even two years after this incident this court acknowledged that the law was not yet clearly established that's important because recently in the law in the past term and in recent prior terms the united states supreme court has tried to provide more clarity as to what clearly established means in the context of a potential denial of what is presumed immunity from suit for all of these individuals last ter in district of columbia versus westby ph thirty eight extreme court made it very clear that to be clearly established the legal precedent principle must have been sufficiently clear in this foundation of the den and identified by the pla existing at the time of the challenge conduct such that it is enough that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply so under westby the palace have completely failed here because they've neither identified a rule stemming from cases that they've cited that they would argue is clearly established of course they cannot in light of this court's recognition two years later and higher that the law was not clearly established but even if they did they would have to demonstrate how that rule was clearly established at the time in the end as the supreme court expressed a standard versus sims which is in my brief page forty because i mean to give governmental officials the breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments it protects all but plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law the burden here to overcome immunity is to demonstrate that every one of these individuals is one of those longer sure who was plainly incompetent or who knowingly fact that they were you know in the listing do you have other cases beyond what counsel has cited you want to read if you do the freedom ok back to you ok there's a few things i wanted to kind of focus on what is the cause of the clearly established allegation that he just management and i believe that the law was clearly established because jacobs was decided in two thousand which is a law a long time before this incident and it it does say that a pretrial detainee has a clearly established fourteenth of inner right to be protected from the risk of suicide and that's a that's not quoted b transforms i mean i still say you go way back to hair and you go back to former horses brenda i mean almost supreme court alone i was in the circuit cases i mean that's a standard of subjective to the difference so what in this case back to the question the judge will have the issue moves the needle past a number of these cases we have where you know look at them we but what is it in this case moves the needle to where there is the subject of element that form of the brennan talks about and at the supreme court has reiterated of knowing about it but being have to have intent to harm it's just delivered in deference which is a lesser standard and the fact that he said a i just awareness of our race and consciously disregard so what have you played in this case that shows on a pleading standard this conscious recognition and disregard that's counsel absences you you know played you know four times in the complaint and awareness comes and with the the witnessing him on the bridge the fact that he was about to join the the fact that he was yelling and screaming and banging in the cells and he wished he had jumped and his just his actions in general shows that they were had to be conscious of the fact that he had suicidal it ideations that as far as disregarding it the that they gave him a blanket they did not they knew they shouldn't have given him a blanket  here this is somebodies life somebody died and they had to he had the power to prevent that and they chose not to they completely disregarded the the very very obvious risks the very very obvious signs that h a trick question i mean sure that that's come live pleading that's and it's your right eye other than what i said i don't really have anything you know the question you write thank you all right thank you council on both sides briefing as i say if you've got other cases you know the days when they no later than friday submit him to us ok thank you all right well