alford and i represent the pellant mr status at its core this appeal presents two basic questions for this court to decide st did the district court improperly grant summary judgment in favor of s t a my excessive restraint claim by finding that the video of the incident contradicted mr stennis his version of the events and nd did mr stennis adequately plead a failure to protect claim against s t a bury the factual record in the relevant case law suit or answering both of these questions in the affirmative let's start with the excessive restraint claim against us jim i or the only element in dispute on this claim is whether s t a meyer acted knowingly or purposefully when she applied the wrong restraints  respects st the district court incorrectly found that the video contradicted mr status his version of the events it did not to the contrary the video supports mr statuses core allegations for example it shows the s t a meyer was in the room with status on several occasions that she applied the wrong restraints to his ankles that she adjusted to strange at least one time after she applied them that she had at least one other physical interaction with mr stunts moreover the video could not contradict mr started  call correction officers they know they're not correctional officers leave the room and he appears to sort of jump up and walk like a penguin because he clearly has handcuffs on his ankles walks over to the other guys and they're kind of laughing and he looks down at his ankles and then quickly kind of wattles back to the bench sits down and doesn't appear to having a conversation with anybody before he's told to get up and then kind of falls at the doorway there's no audio but what should we make of that he just ignore it no i don't think we need to was applying the restraints so at least there we know there's video evidence of him talking and presumably as he alleges telling her that they're the wrong restraints she seems not to care you know and th she interacts with him one other time and it's hard to see you know any any let's move on or not whether he tells her anything i think that district court you know anyone else who has people who are walking back and forth different people these  him on or take him or loosening them but then he sits there for a long time with all kinds of opportunity to show someone look at these things and you can't even walk with him he didn't say anything claims he did it just verbally these are the wrong restraints please remove them if they can or him you know that's more evidence that they deliberately did it and they were ignoring ignoring his situation well i thought he made queens that he was telling failure to protect i'm interested in that as well ok yeah we can move to the parish protect claim so i sit here so as not represented let again the district court complaint he alleged one that he told s t a variant that the wrong restraints had been applied and that didn't remove them to associate barry knew that the wrong restraints created a substantial risk that mr stennis would fall and seriously injure himself and three that s t m very deliberately did nothing to fix that issue when he easily could have as a member of the transportation team responsible for his safety and so i think we see that he he he sufficiently wrong restraint purposely or knowingly as required under kingsley meyer introduced into evidence her statement that this was a mistake on her part the result of misidentifying oversize handcuffs as leg restraints and stance offer nothing to prove that this explanation was untrue nothing except for the fact that they had two little links on them and the other change are about eighteen inches long that's correct your honor that the chain was shorter on this set of cuffs but a person confronted with a strained issue here would not knew whether it was  ambiguity is evident in the defendant mr sheffield ordered a fine for your client do we have to agree with you on that point don't do we have to agree that your client that you couldn't tell the difference between the cuffs that she put on his legs and the cuffs that i guess the other guys were walking around in that role on the video you know you're not it's not like it's not like it's not like she had never seen it before she could have just looked three feet away and saw the other guys walking around right your honor certainly there were other detainees with different sets of restraints on their ankles but the point is just that there's nothing in evidence to show that meyer was able to recognize this is not a pair of leg restraints except i think i mean i guess what i'm concerned with except for the obvious that obvious distinction between the handcuffs that you put on his ankles and that one was like yes it was like this  t i guess what don't do we do we have to pay attention to they have to find here for your client the court only has to find or this court only has to conclude that there is insufficient evidence that knew that she was another words that she was purposely knowingly applying excessive restraint under kingsley and so the the appearance of these cuffs is something that the other thing is that your honor pointed out he was able to amble a bit in these cops and did when the officers left the room and so it's not so obvious that this is a set of restraints that a reasonable officer wouldn't have thought was possibly appropriate for preventing someone from walking with a larger gait so  is your answer to church purchased question that would have to agree that no reasonable officer could find a difference in scuffs or that she wouldn't be confused that these four and cuffs as opposed to like irons well it's not that no reasonable officer could find that these were  cuffs but simply that it could be negligence on her part in not investigating further whether these were handcuffs or leg restraints again the constitution isn't the due process clause is implicated by negligence requires evidence that this officer could identify these as improper for like restraints and there are multitude of ways that mr senna's could have proven that with training  evidence evidence that there was only one type of leg or street and she knew as much or that she knew how to use different types of restraints i mean here we have a video that shows meyer struggled to restrain stannis and not just with these restraints but with each type of restraint the waist restraint she called somebody over to help out with at one point their video does does not support of finding it all that meyer knew what she was doing it shows that taking the cuffs off and then reapplying them seeing that they they've fit around his ankles and then he goes on about her business of restraining the rest of him before she goes on taking care of business restraining other detainees in the holding area so  it's not as if she didn't do anything in response to that she investigated further by seeing that there are these fit on his ankles and apparently didn't cause pain or discomfort are there when you have to conclude that and but my was the only officer who visibly interacted with him there facing each other the postures conversational and the same is true when stan is filled to the other detainees you can see that he's speaking to other people on the flip side st not speak to the other officers as they walked across the room passed by him and in and out he never legit he spoke to them in passing and if they ignored him or that he talked to them and they respond he says if they talk to that he talked to them and he responded with instructions well the video shows and and that is the kind of tucked under him and said nothing for a long period of time i don't know it was five minutes or he said there a long time you don't seem to be we're not raising that or maybe that's not an issue while you're on we just want to be careful that we're not asking this court to make a credibility determination and you can look at the video and see that interactions didn't occur and i think that's important but yes your hon or he also did stand up walk around and come back and sit down and not visibly interact with any other officers and there is a security concern here just because dennis is in a holding area and unrestrained detain me who the officers are not aware of we don't have evidence or the officers knew whether he was violent or not should be restrained for the safety of officers and other detainees and to prevent the risk of flight i do want to thank you sorry about that just a few quick points i think what the district court did here it did make a credibility determination i don't think the video blatantly contradicts mr statuses version of events and so  court had to do was make a credibility determination in favor of s t a meyer i think everyone agrees here that the credibility determination should be left for the fact finder and not the district court at the summ correct yes yes and i thank you for accepting the appointment for your contributions to the case thanks to both counsel and the case will be taken under advisement