on retaliation in various actions taken based on their membership in the class of the two thousand and thirteen class action so as i understood the district court's ruling that they couldn't  state a claim for that type of retaliation on their membership or participation in the class action because in fact they were not participants in the class action so i was wrong with that determination i submit this case with the prior case that was more that because half of the plaintiff in this case have nothing to do with filing affidavit and and and that's the reason  everything was off was intimidating to her because of the gun in the bathroom is that she she doesn't say that she told them to leave or that she told them not to come in no she she did not say that and but she did complain that they asked a lot of intrusive question and then when she broke down there were forcing us to look they keep asking question until she does say something that that i told them i could no longer speak to them and apparently she didn't speak to them after that why she after she wrote down that then she says she was unable to talk anymore and then they left after that meth they were and then after they left they generate a report that is an issue in this case that generated the reports saying that she's melinda doing for tending to be more sick than she was and that report no witnesses no notes and still there was somebody who translated all of that there were no proof that she set the things that the report set that she set or that she looked better than she was she didn't  good morning may have please the court corney dixon from the department of justice on behalf of the federal defendant there are two sets of claims in this appeal against the federal defense which this report probably dismissed and i'm happy to go through them quickly the st set of claims are claims for prospect of relief against the social security administration which the district court dismissed for lack of justice should belittle the nd set of claims or claims for monetary damages against individual federal defendants under begins with a district court dismissed for a lack of cause of action to patel who are the only two federal agents in the complaint who allegedly had any contact with the plaintiffs in the context of these searches of the claims against the car and try and continue based on their will have are at least based on her supervisor yes your honor and that's all the complaint alleges against her is that she provided negligent supervision but of course that's a legal conclusion that's not entitled to the presumption of truth there are no individual factual allegations about her conduct and there isn't responding out superior liability under bevan's so that gets rid of this hagar with respect to mr tran the complaint alleges that he made various phone calls to plaintiff on toddy beginning in two thousand and five perhaps spanning to two thousand and thirteen for example plaintiff alleges that he called her stupid in response to her application for loans it's unclear how that relates to these alleged searches and the complaints and certainly none of those allegations amount to a constitutional violation  affidavits that they had filed in the family vacation to all the complaints in this case so i think the district court was correct to understand plaintiff's claims as related to the two thousand and thirteen class action and with respect to the extent that plaintiffs are meaning to allege that mr to one mr know when or instead retaliated against on another basis plaintiff hasn't plausibly allege that and so their claims would have been properly dismissed in any event so opposing counsel says it's not retaliation if i'm understanding opposing counsel correctly just as standalone unlawful search and other violation of constitutional rights the district court considered all of the plaintiff's claims under the th amendment and some of the earlier motions to dismiss in this case and in the context of that order the district court found that only plaintiff tie had plausibly alleged a th amendment claim he focused on her language that they had barged into their home i take appellants argument today to be that in fact going to address those claims i don't represent those defendants ok as to that there are these bivins claims and there's an argument about were they federal agents or state agents as between the two of retaliatory allegedly interview that happened in two thousand and fourteen nothing to demonstrate that those searches have or will recur in the future and of course plaintiff hasn't even stated in their brief that they believe that these interviews will recur in the future instead they claim that they're seeking prospective relief now related to individual benefits determinations but as the district court found the social security act of privacy the district court of granting relief with respect to that that claim arises out of the social security act it has to be channeled through the agency through in accordance with the administrative review scheme briefly helen has stated that there is no way to challenge information in their minister file of course we lay out in our brief that there are many ways in fact to do so the social security's administration's litigation manual provides a right for claimants to look at their real benefits file they can present evidence they can even ask the a l j to subpoena witnesses and of course if anything takes a claimant by surprise at a hearing they could ask for a supplemental hearing they could seek an appeal to the appeals council and they could get final they could finally get review in district court for any final decision of the commissioner can a piece of evidence if it's determined that the evidence into a hearing i don't know how the agency would handle if that argument was presented to them but of course none of the social security act it requires presented exhaustion of claims really arising out of the so security act and certainly an argument about what is  claimants file in the context of benefits proceedings goes to the very heart of what the social security act requires to be presented and exhausted through the agency if there are no further questions or are i'll say the remaining amount of time for sleep are all right thank you very much is unique in that yes on the you know at the motion dismissed stage we are limited to the four corners of the pleadings and we actually do have sworn testimony from miss tai attaches an exhibit to that thirty minute complaint and although  allegation in the thirty minute complaint alleging that bilson or sanchez barged into her home the affidavit actually contradicts that and states they knocked on her door she answered their questions forty three in the excerpt of record but that does have the words unexpectedly borge into my home and paragraph two dozen and that's i'm reading from the from the district court it does say that your honor and i'm reading from there honor taking the arguments of ms man back earlier and the statements in the complaint you know it is it is unclear as to whether or not mr i simply felt intimidated because they were law enforcement or if they entered her home without consent well i'm looking at the far edge into that so let's say for purposes of argument that we read barged into my home as entering without consent so  being on the door and barging in so could you go to your qualified immunity argument sure i under qualified immunity because we have these facts online most people so sure in this case this is not a criminal investigation this is not a typical law enforcement investigation so whether or not the there approached her home and banging on the door and entering her home whether or not she understood whether or not she could ask them to aren't i right there you are right your honor but i think that it's it's a little muddled where it's a civil investigation and it's an investigation for benefits we're not talking about a life before you leave this point just to be clear so you can  think you just said it's not clearly established that she would have the right to ask them to leave her home is that we are is this the premise for your answer to judge of no no the issue is whether or not when these law enforcement agents went to her home to investigate her claim for disability benefits whether or not that interview was a clearly established whether or not the interview violated a clearly established th amendment right held by mr i right and so i'm trying to figure out i think her officer went to the home of a claim and and set up a ruse so he introduced himself as a law enforcement agent and but said he was investigating a string of theft in the neighborhood identity very very clearly said that they were investigating her claim for benefits they asked about her disability they asked about her injuries so in that case the court did find that there were in the mix in the whaling case the court did find that there was a th amendment violation but found that it wasn't clearly established whether or not his civil investigation on an issue of benefits would be a violation of her th amendment rights this is not a case so if we're just talking about getting back to this what a reasonable officer wouldn't know here or whether or not when they knock on the door and they start questioning her about her benefits whether or not that's a violation of her th amendment rights in a civil context you have to distinguish the questioning from the entry that is i understand the point that you know when you're angry and abusive than asking questions that might not be clearly established but  if you enter against a person's consent or break down the door or refuse to leave why would it matter whether you call it civil or criminal that wouldn't matter your honor i think the issue is that there are conflicting facts in that affidavit and in the complaint whether or not they barged in or suddenly appeared i mean they didn't call her in advance and then knock on her door they appeared at her home in the afternoon and walk in and is clearly established that that violates the th your honor i think even if even if in this case it is clearly established that a th amendment right was violated i think then we have to go to the jurisdictional issues of showing the gun and just walking in because all of these three plaintive i think taught them at least do not speak english they were a former refugee and just a fear of seeing a police officer then off for them to  anybody end so i don't think there was any consent in this case and if you look at all three of them even if the defense counsel say that they were learn only a peise case but