are and there are two points to be made about that the first is that in filing discrimination complaints inmates are not required to name every single party that may have been involved in the act of discrimination that he's alleging all they're required to do one of the oregon procedures is explain what the instance of discrimination of was that they're complaining of and then allow the prison system an opportunity to investigate his claims to make a decision he does not have to specifically name any individual that service that he has not filed discrimination complaint specifically naming the bill or butler even though those are the primary people that he names specifically in his complaint i understand what i'm just trying to get my hands on what is in the works declaration because you saved you know in the declaration paragraph fifteen sheet so these are the only grievances filed by inmate smith the correct then i go to the discrimination complaint section she goes through all of the discrimination complaints that he's filed plus there's this sort of paragraph thirty six which says there are no if she had done that and if her affidavit attested to that then there would be at then he would go to the district court and would be an adequate record for the district or to make a factual finding ok now let me ask you this he does make claims against these people b the impossible task of attempting to divine whether an individual inmate understood what was at stake if you failed to put all his evidence before the court in so doing the rand court explain specifically that there are only the very limited exceptions where the harmless  smith understood the concho words of what you what he had an opportunity to and what he may be required to do and under numerated rule twelve the motion to dismiss and that is introduce evidence demonstrating that he had in fact of sauces administrative remedies and because there is no evidence the harmless error of you is not applicable on programs moreover if there is evidence in the record that mr smith thought the opposite there is evidence that he thought that testimonial or other types of legal evidence may not be submitted at this procedural and that that is evidence enough that he did not have that he did not have notice and that he did not know or do that there is no objective evidence in the record that he knew that he could introduce that have you agree that   failure to give notice and we do concede that the district court and defendants did not give the notice required under rant but whether that was harmless error in that very narrow category of cases that can said as you are pointed out that there were no other grievances filed in that he says affidavit did not use that same language for discrimination complaints can be inferred and remember this court standard of review which we disagree with  as far as plaintiff's the court of the district court was allowed to make a factual finding and given says look at all of the defendants that were named in this lawsuit and affirmatively stated that there were no discrimination complaints filed against three of the four defendants the hard hill and butler there were discrimination complaints filed against correctional officer that he did not have to exhaust it mistreated remedies with this i think it's equivalent to the concession that this court talked about and why it that he didn't need to he was proceeding and not in his response to the motion to dismiss while he didn't attach an affidavit he did attach other response of evidentiary materials which that notice talks about when he attached some documents from explaining why he didn't in his view didn't need to  prostates opportunity to reply with a response of evidentiary materials or and or counter affidavits in understandable language that even the prisoner would understand that they've got a right to do before the acts for a correct and that was and that was not done but given both his position in the district court and his demonstrated ability to produce have position up to that point he hadn't received around notice how do we know that he his position was one of change well i think he was going to find out the remains that he did well his his reasons he didn't want his position was that he didn't have to exhaust his his remedies and objectively it's the state's position the defense position that since he demonstrated his ability to attach other evidence and to contest everything that the defendant said and if you look at what his he thought he wanted to prove that he did exhausted remedies he could have said it now might not have been the affidavits that are required and we'd be in a different situation but given his position the incident giving rights or grievance hundred eighty days giving rise to discrimination complaints all of those have sufficiently passed that is also procedurally to be faulted and that's why it ties in both to the legal matter honor talked about but also into the harmless error argument because if this is going back to district court all we have are did you exhaust back in two thousand and two or whenever he made these complaints he has an intermediate or suggested that he he does that he did exhaust his remedies in wyatt this court and footnote fifteen talked about he took the plaintiffs in that case said i did and i have a letter to prove it send it back to the district court so that i can i can prove that in this case we don't have that type of evidence the other thing i want to talk about is that the concerns motivating recognized that that if in an abundance of caution this court feels that it's better to send it back to the district court that is certainly a possibility what we're saying is under why you have the fair notice requirement of the court and grand identified and i'm just wondering how we're able to say that's harmless based on just what his position has been up to that point well into any cases that are closer to this one when there's no harm no foul his ability if you look he's filed affidavits in the district court he challenged the sufficiency of the affidavit under rule eleven again demonstrating his ability to negotiate or negotiate what kind of  things i can put into the district court what arguments i can made this is in the shy in me in terms of his litigation tactics in if you have an objective view of the record the other materials again citing rule eleven and parroting the language of rule eleven in this response and also using language that comes from fifty six in the states a position that could on an objective basis and what mr powers that the committee for is a subjective look into what mr smith intended to do by making certain arguments in his opposition to motions mass the rand notice was motivated not only by the factors that mr powers indicated but it's principally motivated by the