why a further amended complaint would have been any better well i think we might have been able to perhaps satisfied more specifically is the the  claims because what the judge judge borat's letter to the county supervisor is basically sets forth that this is all happening propellor brief is devoted largely to this rico claim which i think is without merit and never a scratch lee direct like never expressly says anything about why the judge erred in dismissing the eighth amendment claim other than reciting boilerplate about dismissing complaints don't you have to do better than that in an appellate brief to to challenge a judge's ruling obviously yes your honor that if that what troubles me talk about it all you say is but that because the facts alleged in the first american play without saying any what the facts were there's no record citation set forth very detailed factual allegations that more  fully support all of plenty of suzhou claims the district court erred in those missing those claims that's boilerplate that doesn't meet any of our requirements as far as specifically stating your claims and giving records i take sions as to what facts were alleged mad as i look at the the allegations in the first i'm an for submitted complaint where you talk about your eighth amendment claim to to a considerable extent and like to ask you to what extent you seem to link your claim there and you say it impairing his ability to think clearly and behave appropriately and to have a fair trial and to recover appropriate damages you seem to be linking the the harm to what is really a seventh amendment claim because the district court rejected that is because he did not get the site psych medication it impaired his ability to effectively participate in in the trial this is really a freestanding eighth amendment claim or is it really is a claim that's actually linked to a dollars for three days of sleeping on the ground it's i mean i don't minimize the constitutional violation but that's that's pretty good money for sleeping on the ground for three days well so you are wildly successful at his individual is a judge really quite correctly dismissed it when i'm having difficulty with this he never discusses what you say is the other half of your claim judge judge let this correctly points out that it's not clear that you were making too but the judge really never discusses the eighth amendment at all as well he basically says also that none of the defendants had any direct contact with the plaintiff and we had alleged that these two right but is there anything in his order that mentions the word race amendment other than listing your claims like everything else i couldn't find i can find anything in the states or the counties motion to dismiss that actually addresses the eighth amendment claim separately either think my my inclination is to think of the reason many claim should not have been dismissed with prejudice but you don't you have some obligation coming to us and explain why and as opposed to just saying here's the boilerpla the constitutional crimes you're really concerned about the rico claim which might give rise to travel damages there's about twenty pages in your brief about the rico claim there's less than two pages about your eight constitutional claims no before five but no particular breakdown about about their houses why there's a fourth amendment claim why there's a seventh amendment i've explained today why you think there is but there's nothing in your brief that says so why there's an eighth  ment claim and so i think that's my concern i'm not sure you can answer because it's just there but that otherwise i think this i would be inclined to think the reserve the issue that you hear so that's mike that's my problem with the case stated very generally which is not surprising for a complaint but you i think you referred to some documents that you filed specifying the individual defendants who were responsible for this denial that i understood you correctly and if if so how do those play into if they do the fair consideration on a motion to dismiss first question did you did you specify do you actually identify individuals who are responsible for this denial in when you're saying  argument we have the ability to overlook counsel's failure to brief this specifically and and i give you state your county credit in the sense that below you said of course we are happy  difficulty with him dismissing a bunch of claims but this particular point you have said i was prescribe psychotropic medication i needed it for my mental health i asked for it repeatedly and i wasn't given it requested medication and they refused to provide it is not enough i don't believe it is your honor i believe that that should have been raised in the initial case in the first thomas case when that case went to trial if there was that alleged deprivation capacities then we even said due to qualified immunity and everything else but that's down the road why it had been futile to amend these two people because i don't think that there could be any allegation that could be added to the first amended complaint that would have risen to the level of stating a claim of the liberty difference this individual medically i mean even if you have a situation where somebody sees a doctor and the doctor makes a decision that for whatever reason they don't believe you need this like a medication that's not enough to run the liver and the last of it pretty clear so even if in terms of in terms of stating a claim as opposed to evidence or proof isn't it isn't sufficient for purposes of stating your claim to say i made known my need for this to be added to make that a viable claim and in the context of us of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need if your allegation is that you weren't given medication and there's no there there was never any indication anywhere or even suggested anywhere in the papers that there was anything more than a doctor's simple decision not to give the person the medication that they requested and if that's the only thing we're going on to state a claim for deliberate indifference it can't be enough well but i guess i still have this question is it inconceivable that the plaintiff could have alleged more facts to say he repeatedly asked me told him that it was necessary for me and he she didn't give it to me well i'll be honest most circumstances you know i have a feeling that a lot of the business of the circumstance probably would have granted leave to him that but that doesn't mean that the decision in this context was wrong especially when you look at the totality of all of the things that the judge was looking at  when you have as your honor put it you know seventh amendment claim a sixth amendment a claim claim a rico claim all of which are so defective when you look at all of those things together it's not shocking to consider that the judge would look at the same set of circumstances and think given that the only bare bone allegation that's included it's been support of the eighth and eighth and fourteenth amendment claim is a simple decision by a doctor not to give somebody medication that they request and apparently it was only on a single occasion from what i heard and i'll be honest my recollection was that there actually were not like line staff who actually had been involved in a decision actually did i allegedly deny the individual medication that he had requested my recollection is that i had twenty seven individual defendants and all of them were high level rank high level personnel including the all five members of the board of supervisors custody captains custody commanders the assistant sheriff you know i think in terms of whose names defendants you're right in there for some women it would have been needed to specify the person who is knowledgeable might have been so i think that was my recollection and all those facts well i think in that circumstance yeah there is an ability to say and that would be futile because the concept that any of those people would have ever had any specific interaction any personal participation in anything having to do with the plaintiff's medical care is not possible what do we do with is i don't think there's any doubt to disguise indigency well i would actually my response would be he just had ten thousand dollars in his pocket from the thomas number one case you know i'm not so sure he would qualify as not but if you want to pursue a separate claim about particularly one in this context he's got ten grand asking for four hundred dollars to pursue that claim especially in light of the issues that we've been discussing i don't think that that that was the application detail that they can't do the application on the calendar