yeah i actually do in your brief you argued at length about the state created danger doctrine i did not see anywhere where that argument was presented to the district court could you point me to where in your papers before the district court you raise that argument that i did not raise that argument before the district you know we typically don't consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal although my understanding is that the argument was raised by by opposing counsel in their papers if i recall correctly so yeah i guess that the district court didn't rule on and you didn't make a claim based on state created dangers that right that is correct john ok thank you  is there any record evidence also twelve b six is there any allegations from which we can plausibly infer that the defendants implicitly sanctioned mr hubert murder of mr justice system would not or was not able to punish him you know we had a situation where you know he was he's been served six years for the death of another person he violate his parole  situation he starts to feel oh almost able to act with impunity and then my concern the argument i raise is that given the present state of our right to defend ourselves my argument is that is that as as one's right to defend himself begins to to lower than the d the obligation of state under the fourteenth amendment in numerous opportunities to or cert exception below in fact the city in a pre motion letter before the just record explained the basis of our motion to dismiss which included the fact that none of the exceptions to the general rule that there is no due process right to be protected against violence by a private citizen and also even if the court were considered more to consider this way to argument it's m d because of the fact that some just judge carney you pointed out are there any allegations in the complaint as that you can draw or inference and there are none there are no allegations and the plaintiff was given numerous opportunities by district court to amend the complaint including the last opportunity which plaintiff was given twenty one days after the motion prac after the city moved to dismiss and after the plaintiff received the documents from the state department of parole in this case there is absolutely no basis for city liability there is no only one interaction between the city and the perpetrator in this case and that was almost two years prior to the scene in staff and we would suggest that that inference in this case would be against the city officer condoning any violence since in fact during that single may please a court mark root for the state defendants as appellant has just conceded the claims against the state defendants are barred by the eleventh amendment because they are only claims against the state it's agency and  an employee acting in their official capacity the claims are for damages and there is one claim for state for injunctive relief under state law which are all barred by the eleventh and then as for the merits of the claim i join in the arguments of the city and will rest on my papers unless the court has any questions about ability to the state defend didn't feel there was a reason that i could justifiably feel like i could mend the complaint and until i received that that e mail that that note explaining the situation regarding mr woodward and his girlfriend in the background as davis where it says that it's too late in the day and entirely contrary to the spirit of the federal rules of civil procedure for decisions on the merits to be voted on the basis of such mia technicalities the federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits and with that i finish