and then he after a medical treatment there were according to a medical doctor he needed certain treatment after that and like a cane and some other things and experience pain and so the district court appointed him  something i didn't understand from the briefs and i didn't have a chance to study the record what what was the timing had discovery when when when mr savant of it wrote his letter and in bosnia had discovery closed both of those cases it went to trial but here in the situation when appointed counsel says i'm not going to respond to summary judgment based upon a vote twenty unless a rule eleven when he said i thought he said  an obligations and make an argument in a in opposition to summary judgment that's exactly right here ok now that's that's not withdrawing that's not refusing to cooperate that's stating a  the council's interpretation of the letter having said i've consulted with an interpreter i don't know berger was there what what if if all of this record can't get from the from that amount from that that that there is a request or a demand for new counsel or your brief just says sort of casually there are all other kinds of signals that  your client wanted a new lawyer but what were those signals how would the district court of known that well one of them in that letter he asked for new but when he gets it but she couldn't read it well he could've got into we got it interpreted and we're polk county so  that done and represented to the court here's my interpretation of the letter now where did the district court commit reversible error the district court committed reversible  well strike that your your your brief is premised on the district court knew he wanted new counsel within and and should have appointed and i'm i'm going back to the premise on what basis should a step to court and the court asked for counsel's and to that clarified or confirm that counsel that had it interpreted yes and accepted at face value counsel's interpretation interpretation by a lawyer who had said there's no claim here that there's no defense that would satisfy or will rule a lawyers ruhleben obligation so your air from that does the district court choir a duty to and to interpret this as a request for substance substitute counsel that that that invokes the the race case well i guess you're right to some extent your honor i mean this well the district court took obligation to look behind the representation of an appointed defense counsel and have a a letter in a foreign language interpreted by the courts o could spend plenty of time to investigate and put together a response to summary judgment which he did not he i'm sorry and he will he did what that's alleged he he made a filing at the end of the extended period saying i've i've done my homework and there's no defense that would set that i could make that would not of violating my ruhleben obligations to the court but we don't have is not that is not in my view unless you've got staff said something and the prison officials said something else and we went through that list and in the middle net probably would have been for appointed counsel enough to say these facts are not uncontroverted correct or this sounds now i can ineffective assistance argument well it might be but with that but not before us coast i'd like to turn if i could to your argument opposing summary judgment or are you do i understand correctly that that's based solely on the refusal of the authorities allowing your client to use a cane no more to the canes is a minor part it's just another one of these example where the the medical staff at the hospital recommended something and that didn't get into the prison notes and therefore the prison and therefore it was a known controverted fact  underlying counsel done his homework and nationally he only went to the prison officials to find out what the notes were he didn't do any discovery at the university of iowa medical center to find out what they were saying about the injuries and the post op care  savant of it do you agree that the kid if on the cane issue in particular if you don't have this broader claim that's sort of foreclosed by circuit press and we have a kate one nine hundred seventy three case barn to restore see that says that you know a person could say that it can't be used as a weapon you can't you know you bought a hammer and another inmate had to broke my clients up so i yes i understand the cane part but i think there might be some other things but that's not the issue ok so the question is there was something before this court that asked for appointed counsel the court didn't take any action on it mr savannah vic's and their claims were never made unlike rice and taylor he never got to the trial court there was no effect of material response a motion for summary judgment and we think by that that this court should vacate this summary judgment cinna back down to appoint new counsel and have them do a proper investigation  court again i represent the iowa prison officials in this particular case and i think there's two things that we know about this case and is one that mr jones on of there was not particularly profession in english we get that we understand that but more importantly the merits of this case sometimes get lost is that this was not a particularly complicated case in terms of prison litigation it's not a failure part per to failure to protect case it's the dilip that's the medical treatment case and the medical treatment this case was as a factual matter provided pretty quickly promptly thoroughly he was injured he was treated he was sent to the university of iowa hospitals and clinics i think the focus of the court should be on that this was a relatively simple case there was obviously the language issue that was out there and the court responded to that by appointing mr moriarty who who particular are the fighting in issue in this case was pretty simple deliberate indifference on behalf of the prison officials who promptly shipped him off to the university of iowa hospitals and clinics so from that perspective when the court looks at the standard as to whether or not a substitute consul should have been appointed it's it wasn't that complicated a case in terms of yet there was the issue and i think the court did the right thing by appointing the attorney because of the bosnian issue but really if you go down to the facts of what was going on his complaint wasn't necessarily ignored it was mainly a fact that he was able to communicate to the court or through the court with the help of appointed counsel if the claimant in the merits it almost certainly required an expert correct so as was the court may take any effort to determine whether appointed coun had looked into whether whether an expert could help it i don't think the court determined asked mr moriarity did you take these steps i think what we don't know about that is we've either got a delay claim or a wrong treatment claim right and either want to who's going to require medical a medical expert right in a pretty substantial expert because of the  the treatment was for pretty prompt plus he didn't sue the treating back and he did through the treating doctor and we thankfully and i we have a great system where we ship him up to do very qualified people you eat you who treat him well  so i think in terms of kind of looking at that what mr moriarty did you know it's not a strickland case it's not necessarily a malpractise case he did what was should the district court have probed a little about what he did the conclude that he couldn't do anything that would violate rule of i think that's always that the issue counsel to you don't does the court serve as a mediator somewhat between dissatisfied litigant in the court appointed counsel to say did he do this did he do that i think at some point the court has to rely upon the representations of attorneys and i think county inherit if the court had that concern and i've seen this done in cases where maybe that the attorney and offender don't get along the say look we know you want to raise this claim but this attorney isn't the one for the case maybe a new attorney would would suit you better but i don't think the court sentenced in this case that  that was the issue i think what the court sensed was that you know mr moriarity statement was that this was a pretty straightforward case you know it was clearly it was a serious medical need but clearly he was treated pretty promptly s up to the university of iowa hospitals and clinics even at the prison he was given x rays bedrest pain medication and transferred up pretty pretty quickly into i think what we have here is not the compelling question is not that he couldn't speak english it was at its heart there's not a whole lot of meat to the case certainly it's unfortunate that he was injured and that's bad but that's kind of life in and prison and so hundred three and we help that look he really didn't he was given treatment everything was fine and so that's really the issue with regards to the claim not anything with regards to counsel's performance the best consul in the world wouldn't could not be does a viable claim as i think of such really what we're saying so the i will present officials to certain this case that summary judgment was properly granted and unless there are further questions i would waive all that was medical malpractise if you operate on your surgery on your hip you would think there are certain things you need to do after that operation did the surgery does that mean that the doctor erred it just means that you need to do something right if you operate on your foot a week later says start walking just because he want to take some steps after that doesn't mean he did something wrong i just because you have pain in your gut understand it might my and i know it's i got from your reading your brief that  my notes say that your brief claims that there were many signs of poor client attorney client relations and i meant to ask you what was there besides the letter we produced into evidence a a  correspondence where the attorney before he was allowed to withdraw told the client not to contact him any more i think that's i know that's pretty common but did anything else before he withdrew before  tough one your honor i don't want to defend that the bar usually usually when the when the client is there saying i have to have a new lawyer because the lawyer won't pay attention to me thank you for sufficient attention to be in the lawyer says you know i i met with him seven times in three weeks and he called me forty two more times and i think we don't have it we don't have an irreconcilable breakdown in relations so i think one anything that's why yes i mean these things are cumulative obviously in your honor in all fairness