know you're asking for a continuing violations that you don't need that you made it all of them but it seems to me you have a decent argument that these matters should not have been considered on the issue as for the others you're correct that we don't really need the continuing violations dr and the district court dismissed those largely based on i'm not sure what it was they didn't decide things in but in fact about some of the specifics it was an act of retaliation but that he says with respect to that triage were completely exhausted by the summer of two thousand and eleven when the charges were dismissed were think yes was the final going exhausting good ministry to let remedies of wrong but throughout this period of time there were certain final decisions made that came before and after october twenty third twenty eleven filed my only complaint my timely grievance about job out retaliation for not getting my job back or for being removed from a job that was the point at which he really sort of realized that this was all a large continue on the prisoner to another which is not permitted he said well this has legal advice and it's what you get special more protections under the first amendment than a normal communication should the supreme court rejected that mistreat them or retaliate against based on them depends on whether the president has a legitimate pure logic interest for doing so so here the court didn't ever get it is legit be logical interest question and just said that there is no first amendment right whatsoever for a prisoner to provide legal assistance to another prisoner and that's just a misreading of shop are so let's face court should have gone to turner he said hi yes and protected activity yes and why would the content of the speech here that is what the prisoner told another prisoner somehow strip away before some member protections ok in terms of the standing you're sure i'm not sure that it would strip it away and i hesitate only because there seems to be a mixture of cases what what i would say first is that the continuing violation doctrine was raised by us our mission to dismiss because as judgment asking pointed out it's actually pled as the basis for his otherwise  raised that is a motion to dismiss so i think that clear on the on case of the complaint going there and to the actual standing issue itself with respect to the providing of legal he actually was claiming one thing and what he was claiming is it's my first amendment right to assist this other inmate whose name is here with his filing and that was the basis  claim when you look at exhibit to the original pleading he did not reattach all his exhibits to his amended pleading i did not object i usually do not when it's right to say on the base the court h which is the grievance an issue never says i was exercise my rights to complain about my very staffing issues or anything else and i absolutely agree he has those right that is i don't i am not certain that he did that in his a grievance and even perhaps he did in his complaint but i don't think he did in his grievance and that's why we say it's procedurally defaulted to the extent the court does read it as that way that he is alleging his own right what i would say is with respect to standing the cases that have said there may be standing have been cases where the actual injured plain the only exception interesting really enough is the case that i had cited in my original brief the rhodes case which i felt arrived to point out because i thought it might be in conflict with what i was ask i think the court would have to work with that i don't think after world but probably at least distinguish it with respect to the first amendment claim that he has a right is essentially a right of free association or he's relying on association the same circuit backed away from results and said we're not sure that what we said in results is consistent with a shot in the interesting point is there shock came from that very same circuit so now we position is this is not a turner case there's not a policy that's challenge here at least that i could see and so i don't think it goes under that turner from our task i think we're dealing strictly with the garden variety retaliation claim and our position is that with respect to court access mr wisner skee has no independent our stern went right and mr pierce who certainly w isn't in this case so what would the relief be we would grant relief to mr was risky based on a wrong done to somebody that's not a party but he's attempting to help someone else yes in effect or somebody says you don't have that right to help someone else then isn't he affected regardless whether pierce perceives he is aided or graduated or sees no need to go forward on his own i think first i think the duty was on pierce pierce i certainly agree that pierce qualified for the help there are think what you're talking about is the removal from the job and our position was talking about maybe the whitney of ok grievances i think if the court  to find that that that chain is met then i think it does have to go back but i don't think we need to go there because i think most of it he didn't file in time i think person was not as something to me but nonetheless it was part of my duties so therefore it was reasonable for me to do i think it's only part of his duties if pierce was assigned to him there's no question in the past pierce had been think that mr pearson is individual rights or whether he would also have a different claim changes mistress newsies calculus or whether he has if we look at these is the street claims why wouldn't the inconvenience of risky and he believes that it was actually fairly consequential because it came at a difficult time for him and prevented him from doing things but i don't think that's clear on the face of the complaint and