in this prisoner suit challenging the sheriff's cross watching fox the dish or help mr bowers presented sufficient evidence to warrant in trial for a violation of his constitutional rights the district in this is the prison medication a foreman in the prison litigation reform act requires inmates to exhaust available remedies very recently the supreme court that when in ministry or procedures are susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations congress has suggested that the inmate should err on the side of exhaustion pertaining to this claim mr bowers did err on the side of exhaustion consistent with the cook county jails grievance procedure in this case your honour's mr bowers was told by the sheriff's office that the office of professional review must present findings before an inmate can exhaust available remedies in this case we know that opi are interviewed mr bowers november of two thousand and fourteen in the same out of the sheriff's office interview officer wrote the correctional officer who was assigned to watch the tier o p p r issued a written fin seems quite at odds with me as to what we held in our two thousand and eleven decision in pavey versus connally and i know how you just try to distinguish that in your brief but paty versus connally did not in in my view or if you think to the contrary to point me to where it does turn upon a question of state law or you know state remedies here it made pretty clear that in a situation where you have a disciplinary process call it o p p r that that separate and apart or some kind of internal affairs of best occasion that's separate and apart from exhaustion requirements imposed upon the inma the prisoner relied on the internal investigative unit and that was authorized by state law in that chafes the supreme court i'm so that there was a question of facts if it be remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether there was that was an available administrative remedy or the did or the prisoner what passage in the cook county grievance procedures do you have in mind that directs someone like mr bowers record that's often going to be the case that that's that's completely common in this case mr bowers was told that o p l was investigating the matter and it also your honor i don't understand i don't understand what you're saying that's that's going to happen every day a grievance is going to be filed the medical care or you know some interaction with the guards oh p r may take a look at officer conduct it's it goes hand in glove i don't understand what that has anything to do with exhaustion and how you get around what we said and pay the versus conley on this point because there because the p r a deals with the inmate and  requirement that the inmate exhaust before going to court but that doesn't mean that there can't be separate mechanisms that a facility has in place to deal with a guard who may have engaged in misconduct or something like that your honor their procedure didn't have any available they didn't weren't able to provide any outcome to mr bowers for his complaint the evidence in the record shows that they delegate everything to the office of professional review regarding misconduct represented to the court in a p d an inmate must wait or opi are to return to find him before exhausting available remedies so that is a distinction in this case the nd issue on appeal it is the complaint that mr bowers have against the individual employees failed to protect mr bowers on the summer st two thousand and twelve you district courts erroneous understanding of the implication of that grievance led the district court to dismiss the claims against officer roach harming individual defendants and he believes that the sheriff's office did not have the notice of wrongdoing in the evidence in the record shows the sheriff's office had clear notice that mr complaining of wrongdoing by individual defends the sheriff's office and the sheriff's office spelled present needed urgent summary judge that exhaustion was appropriate in favor of the individual facts turn into the final is it concerns a claim that mr bowers presented a truck several years ago judge gentleman reviewing mr bowers a situation at the cook county jail covering the same time hell that mr powers was a qualified person with a disability because he was a wheelchair because he was regarded by the sheriff's office as needing a wheelchair to move from place to and they see have any bearing upon this because your description of the district court activity in lacey seems to entirely disregard what happened on appeal your honor on appeal the defense presented the same arguments that's  honor and why why why aren't you discussing that in your briefs is lacey a case you have familiarity with yes sure i argued and in lacy it was surname michael garman on behalf of the defendant appellee is this is an appeal from two district court decisions granting summary judgment for the individuals in this case and for sheriff dart respectively the the  failure to protect claim against the individual defendants was rightfully decided as the plaintiff clearly failed to provide the requisite notice under the p l o re to the cook county jail for his failure to protect  claim this is also an appeal from the jury verdict in favor of the sheriff and that decision was correctly made based on the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate at trial that he was a qualified individual under the a also that the sheriff was deliberately indifferent as they regarding the now claim against the sheriff's office that was properly barred based on the statute of limitations as the plaintiff failed to file and it's timely manner filing this claim for the st time in two thousand and sixteen over a year since the statute of limitations would have expired for that claim turning st to the jury verdict in favor of the sheriff as as paralysis in fact the only person that testified at trial that he was unable to walk was the plaintiff plaintiff also pointed to testimony by dr tiff uniacke observing some some level of weakness that dr de funi act observed from the plaintiff's during subjective tasks dr roxon testified similar to similar tests and found a clear lack of voluntary effort on lastly the plaintiff finally said to a medical provider that he did not want any further treatment for his back because he had a quote federal lawsuit against everyone and this was testimony that the jury heard that the plaintiff confirmed at trial and when asked to explain that testimony he said that is what i said not in exactly those words but that was the gist of it and further that he didn't want to treatment from cook county because there was a conspiracy against him from cook county generally he also testified that he was in fact moving his legs in the video taken immediately after the fight which contradicted his claim of being unable to use his legs and as to the weakness that dr tiff uniacke observed that would be expected based on the fact that he was in fact using a real chair for several years while i cook county jail however that doesn't go to whether or not he was able to walk plaintiff also pointed to the lazy decision claiming that that was conclusive evidence that that the sheriff's office had regarded mr bowers as disabled however his j scouter properly pointed out that decision was reversed on appeal and this court found that the district court had improperly substituted their own finding a sax for those that should have been determined by a jury as it was here and this did come down to a credibility determination as to whether or not the plaintiff was actually disabled and the jury had ample evidence to support a finding that the plaintiff was not disabled in fact clearly there were other reasons that a medical provider could have inputted the alert that the sheriff's office abided by including dr tiff you nack the one who wrote the order himself which is that he gave him this wheelchair based on his claimed inability to walk his own subjective complaint and the jury correctly found that he was not a qualified individual under the a da or that the sheriff's office was not deliberately he was provided with twenty four hour access to nurses to assist him in his daily needs he was also provided a shower of chair and enjoy the chair to a system of this toileting and showering needs and all of these things point to the fact that the sheriff's office was not deliberately indifferent the sheriff could reach there's part of me the jury could reasonably clued conclude that the sheriff's office was not deliberately indifferent and finally there was also even a task force that was correctly pointed out the p l o are a exhaustion requirement is focusing on the remedies that are available to the detainee in this case is not a is not a remedy that is available to the detainee rather it's an internal review process that the sheriff's office would take on similar to internal reviews as was discussed in pavers connelly in this case the plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies when he filed his appeal of the grievance that's where his remedies ended on his for what he could do what the sheriff's office did with his complaint is another matter altogether and it's very clear that in this particular case he had exhausted his administrative remedies at that point whether norman is you are is there anything in your view about the pendency of a no p r internal affairs inquiry begins it ministry of relief is it is an impossibility well at that point he had already exhausted his administrative remedies so what opie are good with that the point is one he had appealed his grievance in this matter is it i my understanding is that opi are didn't really have much to do with the inmate at all is that no p r process is about whether a correctional officer complied with her his responsibilities engaged in any misconduct it's at or a that is correct it's an internal review process that goes to investigate officer misconduct it does not have any effect on  and for that reason that type of thing was a part part of me that when our plane was found to be properly exhausted however with regard to the failure to protect the name that's a nother matter and the key component in that analysis is the fact that the that the plaintive played an entirely different claim than than what could be made out most liberally construed from his grievance his grievance simply said that he was fourteen case and the two thousand and sixteen case was that each one of these individuals were notified of some threat to his safety and each one had the power to transfer him out of his cell and none of them did it contrary to that  existence during the pendency of the two thousand and fourteen case it was a wholly new claim that was brought in the two thousand and sixteen case it would not have reproduced of a fact it wasn't even an argument that was brought to the district court rather it was just proffered and for all those reasons that you now claim was properly barber the statute of limitations finally regarding the of just getting back briefly to the jury verdicts in favor of the sheriff's office it was clear from the testimony at trial that the plaintiff was not actually disabled that he was not regarded as disabled and he definitely did not have an at a record of a disability which would be the rd means in order to qualify under the a and as the regarded as prong would go and it was clear that the medical evidence showed that dr tiff uniacke had issued this order based solely on the plaintiff's subjective complaint of being unable to walk and that sheriff's office abided by that and so even if the even if the sheriff's office was somehow links to the medical provider in a way that would consider them regarded as that's it's clear that the finding by the medical provider themselves was not necessarily that he was regarded as this came down to a credibility determination and the jury had the opportunity to hear from the point and they had ample evidence to conclude that the plaintiff was unwilling or and not actually disabled so he would not have been entitled to the product protections of the eighty eight even if he was regarded as disabled however even if he was regarded as disabled it was clear that the sheriff's office was not deliberately indifferent they did the best they could to accommodate the plaintiff even though they could not make structural changes to increase the number of cells with eighty eight specifications when they were available he was provided such a cell and he could not have been transferred to other divisions as the eighty according to testified be due to his fast for cation as a dangerous enemy so they provided him with twenty four hour nursing care they provided him with a we are me a toilet chair in the shower chair and did the best they could to accommodate him and that was ample evidence to show that the sheriff's office was not deliberately indifferent so if there are no further questions we would ask that this panel affirm the decisions of the district court below and the finding of no properly barred by the statute of limitations and the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by failing to provide noticed to cook county jail of the wrong that he later claimed in his federal lawsuit think the supreme court in a way can two thousand in the st quick explained availability in the supreme court has availability of names capable of youth for the accomplishment of a purpose in that which is aware of opi ours involvement in this case because of his nd grievance were complaining about the same events you mr powers added who had placed the sheriff's office i noticed about the events that he complained that led to his theory in which there was no requirement for mr bowers