it please the court my name is christopher edgar and i represent the appellant mr byron will be in this matter as the court is aware there's been extensive briefing on the issues in this case and so of course my main role here will be to answer any questions that the panel has a prison has to comply with its internal regulations the time limits that it has imposed on itself for responding to a grievance and responding at every level of the appeal process in order to keep remedies available for the purposes of the yes that's right that's right your honor because in this case there were actually several failures to comply with the grievance process there was a failure to comply at the first formal level of review that is there was a response there was two months later there was a failure to provide just wanted with notice that there was going to be delayed response there was a failure to provide the second formal level response and then there was an inexplicable provision of a directors level response five months after the provision of the first level response council do you think is interpretation of availability stems from two reasons first is that a doctor in our view is that the person has to comply with its own time limits to make remedies available under the p r a is that it provides certainty for inmates that is that are set forth in the california regulations for when the correctional authority need not comply with the time limits and those are if say the inmate these are stated in thirty four point six as well if the inmate is unavailable it involves a complex question of law or policy of use those are the two exceptions that the government states apply in this case of course we don't think that those apply for the reasons stated in our papers the one availability exception we believe doesn't apply instance as for a complex decision of lore policy we haven't really been given any reason why the government as to why that would apply the second reason why we believe that our view is more practical is that it prevents gamesmanship fi correctional institutions that is it prevents the institution from waiting for an indefinite period of time to respond to a grievance then waiting until the prisoner files suit and then in order to cause the suit to be dismissed mediately responding at that time if that i wanted to address briefly was the authorities for our view of availability now of course we believe that this is a question that has not yet been reached straight on point by the night circuit and so we've cited a lot of persuasive authority from other circuits  notion of the first is that the rationale of the precedents that we cite for our view that the prison has to give a timely response to keep remedies available under the p l r a rationale of those cases is the failure to meet the time limit and not the fact that no response was actually received second in some of these cases for instance hunger would versus wilson which is a fifth circuit decision that we cite in our papers there was a far shorter delay before the prisoner filed suit that is a far shorter period of time elapsed after the time limit for the prison to respond expired and still it was twenty six a part time period in that case and still the prisoner was allowed to bring suit once the time limit had expired  because there was no affirmative conduct first we believe that there was a permit of conduct because the president took mr willy it responded to mr foley's grievance at every level of the internal grievance process without mentioning the absence of the form eight hundred twenty four second we've started cases regulatory time limits that are at issue in this case are directly they are not mandatory and the regular regulations themselves also provide and allow for late responses under certain circumstances where those circumstances met in something on the record short notice was given well appeal but i mean there was never any notice given saying it's going to take us extra time to do this because of the logistics and all of that that was never done during his work to record the show your honor is that during the processing of the the time periods are not mandatory does that apply to prisoners as well as to the administration perspective because there was a response by the directors level after the suits filed the suit had to be dismissed for failure to exhaust our position there is that as we say in our papers there was a pending threat to destroy  williams legal papers and the deadline for him to prevent the destruction of his legal papers would expire before the deadline for the directors like you know why couldn't his attorney have felt or he had found in state court fourteen appears that the the the wrong i mean that they did pay vs corpus petition was perhaps not the best choice of means although mr foley clearly did attempt to pursue a remedy for that i truly did make every attempt to preserve his rights and