at the ash trash correctional institution in wisconsin in late two thousand and eleven he had a rare inflammatory muscle disease that causes people eruptions on the skin and the destruction of muscle tissue but he was so neglected they had to be rushed to the hospital twice just to survive now he sued the defendant at billy's for a violation of his eighth amendment rights for their appalling in deliberate indifference to his very serious medical needs but we're not here today to talk about the merits of his claims instead defendants want this court to affirm the dismissal of mr lanigan meritorious claims because they say that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies now their friends are wrong and the district court was wrong and here's why the last clear on the seventh circuit that an inmate is excused from the exhaustion requirement particular day that you want to crown and yes your honor thank you i think to address that question and this is where i think the district court went wrong is that the prisoners had to do scuse me was to try to resolve the complaint internally and then they had fourteen days to file the complaint and in this case mr lanigan had already tried exhaustively the first step he had gone to the health service unit multiple times got no treatment he complained to counselors and to social workers and prison guards and he got no help and then evening after trying several times to resolve internally he did go to file a complaint and he went to file a complaint with another inmate because he was in in horrible condition he was nearly incapacitated as your honor you know that he could barely move he couldn't or use the restroom or brush teeth without assistance and he needed that inmates help them right and so when he went there that evening there was only one table available or one type of table available in that was the study now he informed the defendants that he wanted to write a complaint and that he needed to write a complaint in those study tables while the policy indicates their first studying the record is also clear that there was a lot of leniency with that rule the guards had discretion to allow him to use that table and in fact mr linden had used those study tables for purposes other than studying many times in the past and it's also worth noting that  indicates that also that prisoners our prison should allow inmates to help each other when needed to write the complaint so knowing that mr lanigan was obviously in in horrible condition and needing to write this complaint and they had it within their power to allow him to do so and they refused that was an affirmative action by the defendants that prevent in dire condition in excruciating pain exhausted near death but as i explained it's on page seven of my opening brief he couldn't he couldn't stand around went the rules didn't allow for it the rules  your honor i have the sites like this that i peep seven of my opening brief i explain in detail some of the policies that prevented mr lanigan from just waiting around that evening it's also in the record that after the defendant seeing him in this condition and refusing to allow him to complete the complaint that he he gave up he returned to his cell and he prayed for death and he was very close to dying he was rushed to the emergency room a few days later and was hospitalized for three months as a result in that is why he couldn't try again after that evening and i believe that the law in the circuit supports that he didn't have to try again he didn't half to try harder i would point this court to the decisions in versus chandler and swisher where in those opinions the courts rejected arguments that the inmate head given up too soon and i see that i have a couple minutes left i would like to reserve that for a bottle i have  the district judge said all he had to do all he an assistant had to do was stand around and wait for an empty recreation in this beauty earth says that was for be most people do things that are forbidden or is she wrote they don't need to do things that are forbidden however it isn't for ben to congregate in the day room the day room is there for watching t v and in doing things it's not prohibited  or the plaintiff's testimony not like a policy of the institution or anything of x or it i think it's also important to note here that you know what we have what seems really important disagreement between counsel about what the prisons rules are where should we go to resolve that disagreement what do you want us to look at i would look at the evidence of a submitted at the pavey hearing transcript and any act in the exhibits and some set of rules normally to figure out what's required for exhaustion we look at the written rules correct is there something you want us to look out yeah well and i think it's important to know that the rules in wisconsin do not they allow place to be filed after fourteen days such that mr lanigan was and i don't i will come to that that's a different problem but where do we go in the rules to figure out whether prisoners are allowed to was i don't believe there's anything in there that's of the day room tonight that you may cannot just wait in the day room for a table to come open but i think it's important to note that the basis for the rejection the compl was not that it was not was not that the complaint was not filed in just under some or twentieth or around that time but that the mr lanigan not have good cause to wait all the way until july of tw in ministry of code and that's available for viewing the library so i believe that i can hear your answer to my question is nothing now they explained for the handbook says you must file in fourteen days correct and doesn't mention any possibility of exceptions leicester related laws that's true the handbook is not sake of cause i would point out that at the hearing have we if we ever require prisoners to go beyond a prison handbook to find out what the rules indeed require or allow if the hymn book says that our system is you file in fourteen days what is it that would even think lead a prisoner to think that there was some different  someplace else i believe that the handbook is meant to be a short form which short reference bucket neck can't have although i would imagine i imagine this argument if it's so you have to file in fourteen days but there are exceptions if you want to see what the exceptions are go someplace else but it don't say that there are exceptions does it you know it does it just says you must file in fourteen days with no hint about exceptions so mike my question stands have we held in the past the prisoner looking at what appears to be a plea or rule in the handle you know life has to go beyond it to the regulations and if it's not the regulations the statutes and if it's not the statutes the judicial decisions of the state courts i'm not aware of that precise question being ruled on i do know that the court requires the prisoners to follow the rules that are in the ministry of  code i don't believe that a handbook is necessarily even required to have a handbook for prisoners to follow i will note that the evidence in this case is not that mr flanagan actually relied on the handbook itself and he did not testify that he had even read that provision of the handbook or they even had a copy of the handbook he said he was vaguely familiar that there was a handbook but he said that he actually here on top of  in really no i don't believe so first that the prison officials were not they were just enforcing a rule that's of the of the prison system they weren't committing any misconduct in the case but generally requires either misconduct or at least or complete hiding of the administrative process from the inmate where they don't even know it exists mr lanigan here clearly knew it existed as filed numerous complaints over as i believe more than ten years and in the prison system she filed numerous complaints more than fourteen days after the act being grieved should necessarily show he had subjective knowledge of that but he wasn't he did have knowledge of the complaint process generally that it does show that unlike most of the plaintiffs plaintiffs in these other cases who had no idea that this complaint process even believe so i won't say that where you've eventually did file complaints that relating to the incident in this case he began his complaint by pleading that he had good cause to to waive the deadline and so i believe that at that point he surely had notice of the rule and that it was not impossible for the script for him to find out about the mechanics of the rule because he had obviously done so by the time he filed his minister if complaint which asked for you know to excuse the late filing because he had because that was ultimately rejected by miss murphy complained examiner based on the on the reasoning which i think was recognized by this court in the recent case incapacitation would constitute good cause that's what miss murphy determined but that she had delayed too long after returning to the returning to the facility in order to to file a complaint and as this court recognized in the  case we think that shows that the initiative remedy was available to him he just failed to meet the deadline and that given the district instruction that plants are required and the plan of prisoner plaintiffs are required to meet all the deadlines years he knew the rules he followed the rules and that testimony was not contradicted by defendants when they testified and it was not contradicted by defendants in briefing before this court further that simply the prisoner can't obtain or complete forms his remedies are not available and i posit that is exactly what happened in this case finally i want to touch on this this issue of what happened after mr lanigan returned after being hospitalized for nearly three months now defendants want to hold mr lanigan to a new rule that he should have filed either the day he got back or presumably within fourteen days thereafter but as this court noted he followed those rules and he followed those rules to a tee and yet filed complaints in the past within fourteen days of that incident so he was relying on the administrative policy because he understood it and he followed it in the past and he did that he tried to resolve it internally he tried to file a complaint he was prevented and there's no there's no law that says he had to try again and so for that reason we're asking this court to reverse the decision of the district