complaint relating to a december th kuyt by mr weitzman and a december eleven nurses know by nurse mcfarren and plentiful ledges in the kite that he he did that he was almost completely blind in his right eye vision loss was starting in his left eye he was supposed to have been seen back by the doctor within a week and the nurses has scheduled him for three weeks out regarding the december th nurses what he would not have told nurse mcfarren that he would never have told the nurse he had no complaints because he was panicked about his eyesight and that he was certainly not fine with a doctor's appointment on the st because he had repeatedly tried to tell medical staff that he was going to be dismissed or released from the detention center before the end so he's never alleged what he did to that in the complaint yes i he was going to be released soon his the complaint states that he had repeatedly tried to tell medical staff that he was going to be released there's no allegation that he actually i think it needs to be borne in mind that this was he saw the nurse two days after he kited and one day before he knew he was going to be released he does not claim that it is false that he was walking around the fine with the doctor's appointment now i would like to mention that certainly facts of what mr weitzman claims he told nurse mcfarren earn tiredly at his disposal he was there he knew what he said all he alleged is what he would not have said without alleging what he did say so here we have his allegation that the note is false but false is a conclusion it's not a fact and here court cases that similarly hold that simply alleging that a defendant made a false report or fabricated information or was lying about a test results are conclusory and not entitled to  in complaints about his vision loss and rash to the medical staff know that there are no allegations in the complaint that nurse mclaren had ever seen him before had ever been informed of anything that was presumably there's a medical file on him and the nurse would have so we would assume that all that information would be available to the nurse you're saying there's no allegation the nurse actually reviewed that  actually correct your honor also the complaint makes it clear that mr weitzman nurse mcfarren came to the pod to see mr weitzman and was not in the medical unit so it's unclear whether he would have had any with him at that time apparent to stress not favoring one eye no complaints when asked and fine with the december st doctor's appointment so who is that really adequate response to someone say i'm going blind to show that they walk around without favoring one i or the other with with the fact that going blind he says i'm going blind not require some sort of further examination checking vision or something like that or are saying gee you're going blind i better set you up with that if a doctor says it right away  i think you're looking at all of his allegations that the fact that the december nine kuyt and the december th notes reflect two very different things yes they are very different but that leaves only the possibility that the december th note is false there are other explanations first of all i would point out that an inmate can't be compelled to accept medical treatment so here in terms of his walking and not favoring one eye and writes that he is informed that the inmate has no complaints and is fine with his doctor's appointment there are not reasonable inference given the allegation that the next day he rushed to a doctor's office saw his personal physician that very next day as soon as he was released and then was immediately seen by a specialist here looking at the allegations of the complaint altogether and without mr weitzman ever alleging what he actually told nurse mcferrin there are a range of numerous inferences  explain why you could have two very different notes two days apart mr weitzman's symptoms might have temporarily improved he might have been busy or irritated or tired in didn't want to talk with her smith fear and when nurse mcfarren came down to the pod to find him or he may have decided he didn't want to bother with the nurse mcfarren because he knew that he was getting out the very next day and would be able to go see a doctor whenever he wanted the complaint looking in by time what time this interaction took place between the two of them it is not alleged the time  defendants who have been dismissed it could very well be that mr bites man became frustrated dealing with the medical staff at the detention facility knew he was getting out the next day have an explanation for that your honor i think heights are very common kites are very very frequent in the medical system i did as you can tell from the complaint many times while he was  seeing his doctor as opposed to one day he was three days from getting out right and i would point out that you know although there are two days between december th and december th there's no allegation that any mean conservation is kind of a sexual question it was certainly raised the issue that he was getting out the very next day and you know i think it's kind of a matter of general knowledge in the prison system or the detention system message one where and he explained well i'm literally blind ninety percent in my right eye and it got worse today it's starting to happen in my left eye now three days ago i kind of medical but want me to wait for my doctor's was so disturbed by nurse mcfarren deliberately and different response to his state concern they handed tight to a deputy thing looks like medical isn't going to d address my situation this medical emergency or at least respectfully take a slightly different position that if it's manifest from reading that the allegations as a whole that mr weissman expressed reiterated his his concerns about the profound complaint as a whole as the court undoubtedly is aware and particularly when you read the allegations in paragraph forty six dollars to forty nine dollars as a whole and draw all reasonable inferences flowing there from then it's clear that weissman was indeed during his encounter with nurse mcfarren trying to get the medical attention that he needed but i also want to say that frankly it's a bit of a red herring to focus on exclusively anyway what occurred during th have a doctor's appointment scheduled until december twenty one with that means is that nurse mcferrin was aware not only of reported in your total blindness but also that there was no appointed schedule for mr weissman for over a week after that time different situation than you have here though because you don't have an allegation that that the nurse had been referencing the medical records and was aware of the long history of the development of his eye problem that i just troubles me and you may have a quick answer for namely nurse mcfarren to not probably could not have gotten him in to see an ophthalmologist faster than he ended up getting and to see an off the mall or just just up there on the deliberate indifference got immediately on the telephone and started calling doctors assuming the nurse had authority even to do that it's not as though are you contending that he would the plan to put a blast last last vision before the court below they've never taken issue with that causation question and you know if they want to raise it out a later time after discovery in their motion or summary judgment then of course it's their prerogative but for present purposes for purposes of evaluating the motion to court of rewriting the conversation question i think the mid evening to a layperson but particularly if you unearth a person who's reporting your total blindness in one eye is experiencing a potential i'm a medical emergency and the appropriate response in your notified of this potential emergency is to something like and a person to the emergency room now once in the emergency room which is probably where mr weissman should go and as soon as don't agree with this point that you're opposing councils made but i want you to assume that's true of let's assume that we strip out the allegations that nurse mcfarren said made any statements or said something that was false and has no if that's if we strip out the idea that the notes are false and we take into account the idea that we don't have i respectfully disagree i think the prevailing legal standard that would be an inappropriate application of the law the kind of the requirement that a reasonable inference that must be made in favor of about the problem is you you said it you provided the notes as part of the complaint and then what you said about them was they were false but didn't say what the truth was and so if we strip out the conclusory allegation then we just have the no even i'm not saying that's fair or correct or i'm just saying i'm just sort of working through it you know i understand and i threw address that concern i suggest particularly focusing on paragraph forty six and forty seven of the signature on that type so those two paragraphs alone demonstrate clearly that nurse mcfarren was aware of mr white men reported near total blind you don't even need to consider the described interaction face to face between the two of them to conclude based on fact explicitly left in the complaint that nurse mcfarren was aware of reported almost totally blind in one eye and for that reason alone denial of  don't have any questions judge garson judge the thinking and you have a few seconds left i guess your honor just to address the court's question about whether there are copies of any of these if the deputy message which isn't clear when that was done or when that was submitted it is also but i am not positive on that point at that was with our reply in support of motion dismiss thank you very much counsel cases submitted