not formed on any other document so he could not move for the next step in the grievance process in the words of the supreme court's recent case of rasmussen the break the process became a simple must still soldier plan in this case mr platt i'm sorry it's judge cutter kyra's q a question one of the things that i found difficult and i did by your adversary to address this is well about the case here it's it's not so much a point about your argument it's trying to understand what time periods just apply under the regulations under the two thousand and sixteen illinois regulations by their terms and let me tell you what my understanding is and you can tell me whether you think i'm right or whether i'm mistaken the way that i read those regulations is that when mr ray after mr reed files his grievance that's then opened up for him to receive an s response from the warden is that right i'm ok that's part of it but two months and you know we're reasonably feasible is that you agree that's the standard we're applying we're looking at you know i think the standard doesn't have to do with timing scapes we don't have to get the timing because we need and at the st element of the exhaustion the fans whether or not remedies were available and when we're making we have failed delivery determinations we look at the whole record both pre filing conduct and post filing conduct and that approach is supported by this court cases that fines exhaustion had not obtained when a prisoner received a response held that exhaustion had not been properly conducted and on the other side of that coin we have the piles forces we have both you can see which is really on all fours with this case where the prisoner filed a grievance never received a response so we're looking at the time that the time of filing this well as looking out into the future piles and never received a response just as mr reed never received a response this court held fairly clearly that but the question i'm asking is what difference does it make if the prison has simply ignored the grievance what difference does it make whether refile and two months four months six months one year always irrelevant if there was never any ruling on the grievance because there was never any opportunity to take an administrative appeal but prison did not  it makes a difference because under that court precedent prisoners have to allow a reasonable time to resolve a grievance on the merits before filing suit because the p what difference does it may or did it made is it your position for example that because the suit was filed that's why the prison never acted and then obviously my next question will be the president did not act in a circumstance because mr reed did not agree by internal affairs and internal affairs had to investigate before the great it's opposite can make a recommendation on the merits of the the investigation but i take it that we are assuming that the prison never ruled on the grievance in the end right did the finding of the lawsuit prevent the prison from saying you didn't cooperate so your grievances dismissed no the filing the lawsuit didn't prevent the prison considering that but anything that happened once the lawsuit was filed with respect to the exhaustion of remedies or not would be irrelevant so even if the prison didn't like rule on the merits of the grievance after document as one you know it's in the appendix at forty one page forty one your adversary referred to it is one that tells mr reed additional information is needed but it says not a word about anything pending in front of the internal department right so the administrative review board the internal affairs department in particular correctional center itself and with military review board is a separate agency that you know is the appeals agency that deals with all of the institutions in the illinois no i don't understand that but it sure seems to me that if there was a matter pending in front of internal affairs at at the time that the a r b sent it august st correspondence that it would tell mr reid hey you got to go through the internal affairs process to the point i'm trying to make is that i and if if all you had was or all we had in front of us was the august th memorandum i think your point your argument is a pretty good one but that's not all we have we have the august st that says not a word to him about correct your client sad but they came to see him and they ignore and he ignored them so we have a factual dispute there but i'm just not convinced that the record as it stands on august st two thousand and sixteen you know fully aligns with the core of your argument so the response on august st st then there's a section on that form that provides no further redress would be considered  information to the board to resolve it so i don't think the regulations put a duty on the board to investigate the status of any underlying investigation or anything like that from the from the board's perspective it's receiving this grievance and it and  that the internal investigation excuse me the internal affairs investigation was ongoing so they're trying to figure out has that investigation concluded or not mr reed could have responded with information saying this is why i don't have my forty seven form with respect to the time limit here i think it's important to focus on the time of between when the grievance was submitted and the lawsuit was filed because as i stated court has held and forward in alaska that is a reasonable time for an investigation to occur so even if there was a dispute of fact and there is that is the fact about whether or why the investigation didn't go forward mr reed simply jump the gun by only giving them two months to do so so even if you take at face value his statement that they never came to see him he still only waited two months for th barely enough time for the warden to issue a response on its grievance officer simpson explained it wasn't feasible for her to issue that response without the conclusion of the investigators about what had occurred