court in the audience at the court your honors this case is about the failure of the defendants to protect mr morgan from a beating at the hands of an inmate who had been constantly repeatedly threatening him for being a quote unquote homo and quote unquote snitch and mr morgan then repeatedly warning the defendants both in writing and with in person interactions concerning his fears for his safety and the please be specific in the defendant's talking about here because i think the evidence is as to each one and do you agree that claims as to the twenty one that are not mentioned in your papers are and with respect to the federal the th amendment claim that's before the court yes those defendants are not an issue it  discovery after three dispositive motions had already pro se during discovery yes your honor he was pro se during discovery we were permitted some brief discovery i believe prison procedures are in the record in the appendix and the reason that the court found that there was no evidence supporting the deliberate indifference claim is because it the court in correctly applied personal involvement law and the standard for deliberate indifference of several different things we have st a question of the individual policeman corrections officers who did not take action after your client did it and rather surprised that you didn't cite the hayes case which was a decision by judge miscall with judge winter and judge van graff and on it which on situations very like yours but there was more time two days between a warning and when  didn't do anything you never side cites of a hines case where or even a fistfight there was no time in this case there were several hours between the time that these particular people were warned and no steps were taken and whether van is enough to get to a jury and deliberate indifference that's one side the separate thing is whether the war in good in were directly involved were sufficiently involved and very we have the question of if you just send letters to busy people is  enough to make them involved but here there was evidence of spoke to the warden personally didn't say yes your honor that's that's correct and that the question is does the fact that the words used would not be enough to bring about a case is vet a question of whether they were informed and the district court could be argued to have used what is enough to bring a case of deliberate indifference to say they weren't warned which is a completely different issue your honor with respect to the supervisory officials and defendants guiding and delaying the evidence is clear that in both cases mr morgan had personal interactions and according to credit his testimony they acknowledged receiving the letters having they admitted receiving the letters and of that they saw them and reacted and then didn't do anything so that of a question of involvement you say that's enough it isn't just sending a letter that's right your honor and the case is actually the court cited where there was no personal involvement found  is one of two situations are going on there st either the prison official took appropriate action and delegated to a subordinate who did something with the letter or there wasn't enough evidence in the record about the contents of the letter that would in the in the words in your honour's decision in cologne give the court something give the reasonable jury something to hang its hat on with respect to whether it was reasonable to expect that the prison official would have read that letter and the contents would have prompted the prison official to investigate or take some some action in this case we have ample evidence of what was in the the letter the threat to snap his neck for being a snitch  so the individual corrections officers as you pointed out there's less in terms of documentary evidence but we certainly have to credit mr morgan's own testimony that he spoke with each of them at the beginning of their shift and he warned them about his fears about being out and recreation and the threats that had been made which would include all of those statements  the record indicates if i'm not mistaken that it was a question of hours that they came on their shift some time in the afternoon and sometime after eight pm or eight fifteen pm there was recreation time and that's when the assault occurred that would be adequate time for them to be able to take some sort of action either keep mister ridges in his cell or take some other action to supervise more closely the shower or the  as to office not on lindsay based on the conversation you know hours before the incident is that enough to satisfy the standard yes your honor so what you're referring to the standard of subjective awareness in addition to objective awareness so it's not enough for a jury to be able to say well a reasonable person would have done x y z in that situation but there is a fact issue here and that we have  in an environment that has been testified to by mr morgan and a reasonable jury could hear his statements about what they heard and a performer be brennan we know that although you can conclude as a matter of fact that something was obvious and the subjectively understood a juror could reasonably find could reasonably infer that in fact because the situation showed an obvious danger that in fact those individual defendants perceived the danger in your view present we have an affidavit from him we have an incident report he is not documented anywhere in the record we're asking that that decision made by judge bolton be affirmed as it relates to correctional officer might not know based on the record mr morgan approached her told her that he had been assaulted she listened to him she went to her supervisor she initiated an investigation she placed mr morgan in the restricted housing unit she did not subject mr morgan to deliberate indifference she did was she was that he was told she was doing her shot and she was maintaining understand that but their job to protect people i mean what we have here is does the state protect somebody who has turned state's evidence yes real question i mean do we walt the state to let people who have turned state's evidence get beaten up  no that's a pretty dramatic thing where somebody does if we don't do something to protect them people are not going to turn this yarn or there's nothing in the record that shows that mr morgan turned state's evidence and i see him in the shower and instead of the treating and go forward into the shower into the shower and so based on a one hundred and five mr morgan's own comment there is no reason why comedy they admitted john i have to concede for purposes of a motion for summary judgment i have to acknowledge that there are no material facts and dispute and based on that i am saying that what mr morgan has provided is not enough  doesn't have to determine what remy he gets but the constitution says that an inmate does not have the little authority to decide where their house protection if he wanted to put have protection he could have asked to be moved himself but tween nov th when he arrived in january when this incident happened he never asked to be moved he never found a grievance the only thing he did was follow an inmate requests sixteen dollars days after they observe these two they observe these so for six weeks nothing happened during the six week period it is our position that mr morgan has not satisfied his legal burden the record reflected that anything was done in response to their requests forms anything letters no as part of their know much of functions as part of as part of their normal job functions we have a warden that spend as one correctional facility for a substantial period of time there's a facility that has nine hundred they are monitoring they are looking they are observing normal and different questions the district court dismissed awarding and mr gooding the grounds that they were not involved they didn't dismiss them the ground that there was a deliberate indifference of the ground was they were not involved and my question is thing about being a snitch and so on isn't that enough to show that they're involved i'm not saying anything about a question of whether that was deliberate indifference but that isn't what the district judge went on w respect to goes to you said we weren't involved in a perfectly willing to say that a letter to sent to busy people is not enough to establish involvement but i'm wondering whether in this case there isn't enough to say these people know and i think the record demonstrates that there wasn't enough the record what do you have to do but tell them he would have to provide more specificity yes yes i understand that that is what mr morgan said let's admit they got they got his letters and they are  client is saying that i've reviewed that in many requests it is vague it is insufficient and it is not enough and that's what the record says i like to refer the court to the c f number eighty three dash one which is the affidavit award in chapter lane she saying i'm looking at this i'm saying this and this is not enough and i think that i think that part of it was me not enough for what not enough for mr morgan to get the right to decide that inmate rodriguez needed to be moved all know when we're talking about a warden and mr gooding question is isn't enough to show that they were involved because vats what the district court the district court decided on a broad notion that supervisory people in order to be involved have to have more notice of envy got here and i want to know what kind of notice is going to be enough to make them be evolved that's a separate question if then  involvement was such assuming we were involved to constitute deliberate indifference but that we don't have any opinion of a district court in all of them because the district observing these two inmates there in the same unit together mr morning is not complaining he's not saying move me move me move me he's saying move inmate rodriguez and mr morgan is alleging that you know letters to them that's not enough does he have to wait to be beaten up he doesn't have to be what he doesn't have to wait to be beaten up is our position that every inmate on inmate assault does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation what we're saying here is  morgan provided to the court is not enough we're saying that this decision is the very decision and it should not be disturbed we have a judge that has appointed counsel for mr morgan every open discovery for mr morgan and still we don't have enough  who are busy and who are hearing for the st times about some things not being held and the question is was very broad notion that people are minutes thank your honour's just briefly if i may the arguments that my colleague makes it sounds like more like it would be persuasive argument at a jury trial where she can argue about credibility of mr morgan in the providence that he's put forward but that of course is not the appropriate and to say you didn't do enough to meet the standards that this circuit has articulated and your hon believe that there's been enough in the record that mr morgan has satisfied the standards of personal waltman as we see it in cases like boone v l rod in other cases that i cited in my brief and none of the cases that have been cited by either the district court or counsel have changed that analysis for me the statements that for example defendant got in made you know in response to these pleas and warnings about his fears for mr morgan's fears for his safety like don't peek stop being lieutenant colombo learn to fight like a man these are statements that fall short of mescal winter and graphic said various liability and this is somewhere in between because there are a couple of hours but that's the only thing we've got we don't have any statements that's true your honor except with respect report she may have been dismissive to mr morgan but she filed a report i think the point is the point of talking about mr morgan's perceptions in the moment is to go to  and nothing is done for several hours here that is enough so that the jury might find deliberate indifference that's really the question when it's of this amount of time and i apologize for not dealing with the case your honor but i believe that certainly that is enough time for action to be taken by the defendants if i may just take just ask that  evidence to think about how that might relate to the proof of deliberate indifference those are those who reflect that the type of protection that defendant g