of limitations and more specifically the reason mailbox rule the present the box rule applies undisputedly to prisoners who are pro se going to split the rather complaint or it was it seems to me that he was the fact that you couldn't file it so you asked him to file it doesn't change the fact that you had agreed to represent him you had performed legal services so hot you can't it's not one moment i'm represented the next time not the next day l explained to me or you say he was cross a well that's the conclusion there were probate here all indications appear to be that he was represented and he was represented by and it makes a prison no box with him here even in the hollow powers of course mitt might be it might make it easier but it seems to be inconsistent with the entire purpose of the mailbox well the thing is i mean the defendants have argued essentially that he he was represented only because someone else drafted the complaint for him but if you've got a complaint that's been drafted for you by someone who is not admitted to practice in court mr mr justice you're playing word games here at the time that the complaint was drafted had you agreed to represent i had yes or and did you as a part of that draft the complaint yes or and did you try to file  yes yes or did you give him instructions when you were unable to file it as to how he could give it to the to the guard yes so how on earth can you say that he wasn't represented i guess i'm just not sure i mean if we're to say that merely having someone who's not licensed to practice in court make she represented then everyone who files a hate b s purpose petition that's drafted by another i not a pro se litigant because they've got some jailhouse lawyer representing them every single example you give us is when somebody is assisted by somebody else who is also in custody you where you are in custody during any part of this no it was not where you licensed as a lawyer i was licensed in the state courts but i was not admitted to practice in the of you found any case where it turns on whether somebody was admitted to practice in a particular court as opposed to having a bar a bar card honestly i don't think i thought it a case where someone was deemed to be represented where they didn't where they turned it into the prison authorities themselves and didn't have an attorney of record i don't think i think it would be new ground for this court to start probing behind who signed the complaint so the answer is no i don't think i do have a case like that but i also don't have any case saying the opposite how do we what we determine the representation question i like i can see a lot of people to your party line test but assuming we don't adopt is it a state law question if you bring it here i'm sorry but you bring up the issue of state law under tennessee law which is arguably should sort of narrow are a review here allows for tolling based on papers that are filed which are prepared on behalf of a pro se litigant and that says that's from tennessee so civil procedure five dollars it would if the civil procedure law apply i mean tennessee that would apply in federal court in federal civil rights case so i would say that he had an option i suppose a more substantive told him own rules about such limitations or something but i'm not sure but i'll look at that but it it just seems under state under state law the tennessee law i looked know a sense i guess you could say that yes or no but i mean if you're going to draw the distinction i mean if he's not a lawyer the only just intelligent distinction i can think of is that one judge nikki i guess make that distinction they specifically anticipate that you can be gross a lot still have someone else writing your papers to help you filings and so i mean what if what if you got someone what if i hadn't agreed to represent him but i  someone's represented but on the merits you know i have some concern you're asking us to draft a rule out of whole cloth essentially i mean that the rules committee has a draw adopt a special rule for notices of appeal or it's no special rule adopted by any rule making body and so you're asking us just to make up this rule i guess out of equity and concerns for our state individuals to appeals but has not done it here right well and i don't know why they did it for appeals but not here but i will just say under the supreme court's principle as and that's it if used in persons lacked they really get to size not who h drafted the complaint or what the you know make source of legal knowledge is or who has helped there they specifically emphasizes that inmates personal lack of mobility people outside the jail they can physically walk or drive over to the courthouse and hand deliver something where this mr justice you gotta go i want to read the rest of that paragraph which which says nor do they have lawyers who can take these precautions for he had a lawyer one that apparently didn't didn't do a very good job here because he didn't understand where the prison was located and it hadn't got emitted to practice but he had a lawyer well i guess if alternately if the court wants to say that someone has a lawyer who could do all of the things which are hallmarks of representation and which are the rationale for the prison mailbox rule not applying to represent prisoners you had a lawyer who was free to travel about the state and file in different locales he had a lawyer who was licensed to practice in the state of tennessee he was not license in the particular district in which this lawsuit needed to be filed but he had the ability to determine what was the proper venue well in advance of the filing date it simply is beyond question that  was represented by an attorney and attorney license to practice in tennessee the entire rationale used in vs lack is as pointed out by the  that prisoners do not have all the access to the boards that lawyers have this lawyer had access to all of them or t v could have had access to the winchester division of the eastern district had he chosen to do so he could have even filed a lawsuit in the wrong district he could have filed a lawsuit in middle district where he is and was  maine says i was going to file this but it turns out i had the wrong information about the court and so i can technically doable you can do it if a client has said to the lawyer you know to paraphrase someone you're fired  law but i would say again that the rationale that's used in versus black would not apply in that situation because up until that very instant where the client says you're fired just about to roll into statutes of limitations very real purposes they are designed to among other things to allow children and to know when a time has run for deadlines to be modified in certain circumstances for prisoners so we already know the supreme court already has chosen to to apply one layer of somewhat gray area it it respectfully it is not for this board to go further and say we're going to overlay yet another area of research and that uncertainty arises from quest if this court should harvie out an exception for a situation where a prisoner is represented by a lawyer and then the lawyer says well i don't represent any longer and says well i do represent you  represented or not and take advantage of the mailbox rule or an initial complaint and then you don't get to the special about whether they were represented or what but the facts that are you let the file the complaint yes that that would be a simple resolution respectfully it would also be a resolution which is completely inconsistent with the rationality versus last report looks to the language of use in verses like which i'm sure that it is the linchpin or the foundation for the exception is that the prisoners do not have the ability to not have access do not have the opportunity that lawyers have so if we want to extend the prison mailbox rule to situations where prisoners are represented by counsel respectfully i believe that it would be up to the supreme court to make that decision well the specific the rules committee changed tracks for right federal so i guess we carved out that territory respectable whether someone is represented by would the same logic just apply here if the same logic would apply then and i'd suggest it would be up to the rules commission to apply that logic i'd disagree with the logic it has been applied by the rules commission that set of circumstances there's no indication that there's been any consideration to the prison mailbox rule on cases where prisoners are represented that might very well be an intrusion into an area which is properly reserved for states  the additional questions from the panel you know will great johnson appreciate your argument and will go back to mr justice done for your three minute  by his complaint not only that but he was by law prohibited from using electronic filing system it's a mr i would say that the all of the justification is listed in houston courses lack do apply here have filed this and used c m d c s and accompanied the filing of the complaint with your motion for ready it mission to that district is there something is there something that that says you has a different password and username at least i did at that point as i didn't even have electronic access at all and i think the opposing counsel did mention that i could have maybe found it in the wrong district i don't know if you meant found it on purpose in the wrong district to be honest i did consider doing that but i thought that would be unethical since it's just i mean it seems like that would violate ruhleben to intentionally say that you're filing it in the right district when you know that you're not somebody who have i considered that i didn't do  that it's just hard for me to believe then so correct me if i'm if i'm wrong about that particular district it's just hard for me to believe that you couldn't have filed it and accompanied the filing with your request but you're saying you didn't have any you could've filleted you didn't have the electronic ability to do it and you didn't have time to do it because you went to the wrong place st i went to the wrong place st and also there were i didn't even know all d the hoops a check to jump through and i started working on that that day but you had to get like a certificate from another district here already we're already admitted i couldn't get that done and then again i went to this they had hidden where the courthouse was i went to the wrong courthouse so there were a lot of problems logistically and finally i would just say on this issue of certainty if we want to have certainty which is the role that opposing counsel has if assize i would just say that the rule should be either that bit the mailbox rule applies whether you're a representative or not or that it should just be if the inmate has signed a complaint or not those those are the the things we should look at and those will provide certainty in terms of applying the statute of limitations right thank