our third and final case this morning is number seventeen dash one two three six nine leon bright versus austin thomas and all this you michael me good morning your honors and welcome to jacksonville we against him for that incident that based upon the allegations in the complaint viewed in the light most favorable to your they may be but there's two points on that one there's nothing in the complaint that indicates that the police saw that action you're talking about once the police were there there was a moment where the plaintiff reached out and restrained one of the or grabbed the right right one of the other but there was no there was no fighting here firm really so there was no fight he never threw a punch and it's unclear  how it's played whether the police saw that at all the very next paragraph of the complaint says the police then came on the scene or something like that which could be inferred that they were in another area and then they turned their attention once  you know the qualified immunity was certainly is the theme of the day today and was the theme of the order is well and there were facts that the motion and the order got wrong and that is one of them the order says over and over again that the police saw the person fighting the only time that they could have possibly seen the folks fighting was the incident that you just mentioned and if you look at that paragraph it is not clear that they saw it and it was no certainly not pled that they saw the earlier events where the employees rough mr bright it's clear that the police were not there that they had not even arrived yet on the that's the first and second page of the complaint now maybe you can help me with regard to this going what i'm trying to do is figure  and that's because they didn't have probable cause they didn't have probable cause to not arrest him but in voluntarily committed to baker act him he alleges in the light most favorable to him that he gave the officers his information they ran his information presumably in their squad car came back figured out who he was figure out that he had sued the city of tampa or police officers before and then at that point they wanted to retaliate against him and they  it doesn't say what i don't believe it says what the specific officers were told it certainly says he was the one that called nine one one on two occasions and he complained about the employees to the extent anything can be inferred from there would be his side of the clear and as as the court as the court has pointed out it is it is unclear but you've got to take it both in light of mr bright because he's the namu them but also because he's going as pro se and the order gets not only the facts wrong as we discussed with the fight but also gets the conclusions wrong and one of the conclusions that it made was at page thirty four of the record the facts demonstrate that the officers took appropriate action under the circumstances and they acted in bright's of best interest by ensuring he was evaluated and not taken to county jail that for but that can't be squared with the allegations of the complaint and paragraph forty three of the complaint he says these defendant officers orchestrated a plot to falsely baker act you can't square those two things and certainly at this stage you cannot draw that concur conclusion based says in the complaint they took his side he does not provide what information the cops had in order to make that determine other than it seems to be that the turning point was when he gave them the cops his personal information to run and they figured out who he was then they decided  to retaliate against him for taking actions against him and there's even a quote in the complaint where where he says he says one of the police officer says used to cops what what can we do at that point in time they refused to investigate they refused to protect mr bright from a threatening checkers employee and they retaliated against him from baker act and that those things are certainly support the false arrest count retaliation is also part of the false arrest it's the reason for the it's the theory in the motivation ok and then there's an excessive force claim and that is separate right correct and there and then there is a m where are we in the proceeding this is just on the motion to dismiss the facts were wrong in the or the conclusions that were drawn from those facts were drawn in its favor and that was improper at this point even  and we believe the problem is what the court is kind of pointing out that mr mr bright's complaint mixes a little bit of factual detail with more of conclusions about why the officer should have believed him why his version was more credible but what the court was asking earlier in the complaint certainly intimate the way that it is pled that when the officers arrived on scene the officers were told by at least the manager and some other witness that apparently mr bryant was the aggressor in this particular case where is that in the complaint the way that i or the way that i into that is you read it i guess if you take it chronologically the way that mr bright has written it is not until after he gets into the fight with the employee or tussle battery of frey whatever you want to call it but until he goes hands up with the checkers employees while the y so even if you you credit some of what he says even if i out and i'll even spot him that for some reason these checkers employees attacked him for no good reason twelve o'clock in the morning but the officers would not have been aware of that and even i know that he complains a lot in the complaint that there was evidence that they they could have looked at to do that i still want to separate the two issues that even if we say he was not the aggressor and he got jumped on and that there was mr bright that made them believe he had a mental ill and that he was a danger danger to himself or others obviously fighting in the presence of the police or grabbing someone would have given them could have arguably given them the impression that because they did not automatically just go with every single version of what what your honor brought up about the retaliation claim i first of i don't believe the facts as mr bright has cited things that i argue is that the court he keeps saying they falsified things they lied about things but unclear what exactly in the in the report and i know this is a limb in a rest case where even in the franks case even if you get arrested on a warrant and you make a geisha and that the officer has said something false in the warrant basically the court will go through the habit of basically excising those portions that the points of says are false so they have been proven to be false and based on what is left make baker act and certainly he implies in his appellate brief that he has now attached that document so that the court can see what it what it said and what he's alleging but it's still not a part of the record so we still all here let  known that even on the second even though the officers were present for the first altercation checkers employees makes the allegation that they should have known that he was merely defending himself and the second incident in a parking lot where he sitting by some type of car however i argue that you cannot that complaint doesn't support that they would have known that he didn't start whatever that second patient was because he was not allege where they were or what they could have allegations that at some point the officers were were painting him as the bad apple that he was belligerent that so if that is the impression they got of mr bright when they arrived on scene then it wouldn't probably be a read in the light most favorable to those allegations and if they are then you know qualified immunity should have been denied and we go to the next stage to see what happens once the evidence  arrive on the scene and they have parties who have had some sort of content provider different version of if it's not on reasonable for the police officers right then and there to credit the version of nothing in the complaint that indicates that he had until illness would do not have probable cause to baker act him or from some type of arrest or even considering the fight i'm not sure how you get from the arrest to a