i'm afraid all parish representing mr mentor mr long and mr hill the young man languishing away a new denial one of the least of our brother and they have no guardian angels  advocates however we're not challenging their conviction or their sentences and this case does not have many bells and whistles can tell contrary to the district court's ruling on the pre answer motion to dismiss and the state's argument post conviction is a judicial and statutory provision not an administrative process and the state never argued that there was a single  pre answer and that's a problem then he called his plan b basically the fallback position on this case was the hot head i understand that exhaustion is not way you can view this case you can't view it through the a b s action is maher arar you know the way you have to review this case so because we have an alternative here and we chose to do in one thousand nine hundred and three not to talk about exhausting  going through the post conviction process obviously there may have been an alternative that they could have done that they don't have to choose mentor and birdland don't have to choose that nor any other person sitting there if they determine that they are not getting their statutory due process they can bring through here but i don't think we have to argue the merits of the underlying mix to get to what the judge did in this case what the district court judge did in this case is that pre answer  not a challenge to conviction this is not a challenge to the sentence this is a challenge to whether or not these young men are sitting there during the course of this process not getting good time a getting treatment that's the key here actually is whether  and eighty three is in civil action with respect to prison conditions it's not a prison condition it's treatment and i think there's a distinction there but i think you have to go back and judge what i think you're doing and with all due respect i think you're saying well let's go beyond the preamp's of motion to dismiss i think you'll restrict it solely to the pre answer a motion to dismiss i don't think you can argue the broad perspective here and say ok let's give the district court judge a break on how he made his ruling or how she made hers rule a ruling you can't do that i think you are restricted soley to the ruling and how the district judge made it and he made it on two grounds and i think that's what this appeal is restricted to i think you could go down a rabbit hole clearly in terms of  analyzing and under what you call prison conditions he didn't even allow us to get to that point and if you look at the minute of cases that have come out all over the country they at least got past the preamps are two dismissed you would not an attack that seeking a shorter period of incarceration because that's part of the complaint right that that there are number of of allegations but one is look if we can get into this we're willing to get into this program we want to get into it and when we complete it we're going in a shorter sentence i picked for one reason i would say it goes to again conviction and sentencing and you can have to make a distinction here they mandate the treatment so  about time credits correct but the point that we're making and i think our complaint have we been able to play it out and we don't know i don't want to argue that because i could get myself in trouble arguing that issue but i want to go stay pretty well on this issue ra disciplinary conclusion that was reached in the disciplinary process within the prison and what isn't what you're arguing here entirely that you can reach your question without ever questioning the validity of any  that was imposed it does not undermine the validity or credibility of of any decision that's been made absolutely little seating and so what you're saying is that what you're really deprived of is the opportunity to be fully considered for carette because they've set this condition and then they don't allow you to actually participate in the treatment necessary to satisfy it that's one aspect of it but also treatment is mandated if treatment is mandated they should be getting it they shouldn't parole now i know mr hill may differ a little bit on that but before you can even get into the queue to get out you have to have this tree and has there been any if any examples of someone who reaches that that brick wall is supposed to be re and hasn't been able to be at this well and again without that getting a little bit into the marriage but i think we hinted at it and i could probably possibly comment on it and that is there have been people who are  been discharged eight they can't get out because they haven't had the treatment so these young men sit there and if they continue to sit there they are deprived of their due process not clearly we've not had an opportunity to pursue that issue but people have tried to pursue it through the post conviction relief area and other relief area they've got no when the bill case that is cited is back down in district court now which i think as i'm sure sounds  there are it's not know who you are but for back but you're getting ahead of itself i think in by making that statement because you have to start this from the framework of the and recognize the fact there's been no discovery there's not been a single deposition there's not been a single in iraq a toy there's not been a single request for permission for admission additionally there's not been disclosure under the freedom of information so we're really starting from scratch i think you have to start your analysis just where the district court judge left off and if you start your analysis there we win we go back to the end and we start doing the hard work to find out what the state of iowa is doing to these folks but it's not report out i'm william hill from the i would tourney general's office and i represent the i was a prison officials in this matter the issue presented in this case is basically the timing of placement of offenders and sex offender treatment programs in the i was a prison to stop the offenders request an earlier placement claiming that that impacts their ability to be paroled the our prison officials assert that the priority of their placement in the system is based upon their discharge date and that's certainly a reasonable prison function the trial court dismissed the allegation just right it's an extra hoop that they have to go through in the reason that what is the hoop the hoop is they have to file it a prison grievance that they have to exhaust in and that is they have to file the claim you know the  informal disclosure and the it i will we've litigated kind of what it constitutes to exhaust a grievance and their brief says something i think logic that would clearly be eat that would be clearly be a few times a grievance to be placed in the s o p contrary to those systems staging of this would be sloughed off as a request for a for th know that the grievance process would would start with or and we have an idea o c official with the authority to order the department of change and prison officials ribisi and i think that just said there's a grievance process as an unneeded procedural hoops no prison official see this they recognize the problem in that's why the discretion is afforded to them they get you  know as a result of this lawsuit that in it we're getting beyond the fact that they they understand the problem that gosh we need more treatment people and and certainly that would be the issue if we were at it to go back and litigate in there some benton facts about why they moved from mt pleasant to newton and the way the the program has sense been revamped i think there is the the grievance other than resolving any individual problems raises issues with the prison officials that hey these are the problems going on in the system in systemic lead this is what you all need to do when you're describing a grievance process you know if you had it in ministry of remedy has to be i dentified or you just you're sort of describing it generally have you identified what process it is that they have not taken advantage of or is it the same in all of the state of iowa prisons it's the same in all the state of iowa prisons or so there's been i can't remember if it's over ten that over ten case that describes the process in iowa over ten or king that that goes through and says this is what you must do two or three step process in formal resolution these are the things you must do and that's what you presented to the district court and that's what we didn't present we presented the affirmative that hey they didn't exhaust we raised the affirmative or it as much as we know we said hey they didn't exhaust because if they did exhaust they would have raised this issue so it's a little bit kind of we did it's a motion to dismiss so we didn't say they present  affidavit saying hey they didn't exhaust we relied upon their fact that they didn't say that you know and did you present to the district court what the procedures were that they should've taken it into not in the pre cancer motion to dismiss we just argued  serves always i realize this was private counsel but there's kind of a little section that says hey did you exhaust i believe and to whom and that always gets the court a little bit understood better understanding as to kind of where the court where the cases at same and it's the same whether or not this is a case against the border parole if it's a denial of parole they can pursue i would ministre did remedies if it's a case against the parole proceedings they can proceed to be a grievance as in mark the pivotal question is there's a josh and it doesn't matter how you cut that that line exhaustion is going to be required for the offenders no matter what and that's that's the failure in this case that the that barred i don't think the that the supreme court and you know certainly in a belt we argued the opposite that there shouldn't be a post conviction relief clay but the court disagreed and said yeah there they they have to exhaust now i think the court was in maybe this this case or is somewhat premature is we don't know what kind of how bell two is going to progress and say hey we've looked at it we've decided that this isn't a claim that procedurally barter heck barter or habeas parted all this is just an issue that the core asked to the inmate can kind of go on his own if you cut through all the fog and had his own head always of just about if we afford you the relief we're undermining in adjudication or determination of guilt in it and what exactly is the is the determination that's being undermined by allowing this to go forward i mean maybe i'm i'm just not smart i'm on had to figure it out but it has to either the next and or the or this sentence what is your what's your theory on why what what judge erickson is just summed up applies to this particular complain set as a super prison committee in terms of the answer to your question if is a undermining the sentence yes because it's really it goes back to the liberty interest in the prole in it whether or not there is you know if they don't could successfully complete it would it be reduced so it's a sort of that well how tenuous is the connection between the relief that they're seeking and their that's the shortening of their sentence i can i finish answering your question i understand that they get on time if they complete the sentence so we're not kind of empty urn time realm of the jones county case that i cited to the case they're going to if they are issues about the timing and i think that tie you mean does could impact their their sentence and i think that's why the supreme court in bell kind of routed it back to say hey let's take a look at this but that be heck maher well because i think it's he got i think he got go right back to belkin that's why that the i was pretty court ruled that you have to exhaust that issue because that that they say presumably could impact your liberty internet  three is they they talked about at the at the intersection of so bothered the supreme court is the haiti is requirement of exhaustion right and to have the hey b s requirement of exhaustion you have to eligibility i don't see a b i don't see hevia as exhaustion getting in the way of that all right i understand your point we get agreed to disagree because i think that's why the supreme court of iowa right senate back is to say district court determine that and i think that's what we're determined we'll see what belt to comes up with but they didn't send they sent it back so there was a statutory process available at that you needed to go back into the prison and file your prison grievance and work your way through the prison grevious then appeal through the statutory process didn't they send it back and say tell us how the statutory process plays out right because they said you could otherwise be held in restraint