he disclosed box st even soon as possible was inconsistent with his his earlier testimony that he knew the name but that's not really there's no real contradiction here at my believe that he needed to know the don't and it's full name before identifying him and then once he saw that there was only one item on the list of officers working on the day of the incident he did use it was  unusual certainly in this case you know admire had every incentive to reveal that information had he thought that it was relevant or important or would be helpful to the court and yet not the average p know a helpful advice from the judge guiding him on how how do you know engage with the legal process moving forward and you focused on the physical description aspect of this you didn't understand that the relevance of the st name and so so no is that being the case you know this court has found that where a pro se disobeyed his court orders because of an innocent misunderstanding or lack of familiarity with the law sanctions aren't warranted and that alone quently make inconsistent statements they have no experience because legal system and those inconsistency is more likely the result of it is a mistake the result of faulty memory earn imprecise expression and in any event that the question courts wanted it or that it was relevant it no tactical advantage to not disclosing the name and addition the misunderstanding here makes makes more sense when you look at the district courts at the language of the district dismissed and again given the court's focus on the physical description it's understandable that admirer subsequently filed a motion providing just that the physical description of the doe defendant  this this just muzzle was particularly erroneous for two additional reasons st as we discussed plaintiff was a prisoner and wasn't represented by counsel and rather than take that into account in m r speak for the court held against him she found th and although other district courts have done the same thing this court has made clear that that's not the right approach in evidence cited in both being brief and reply this court rejected that lesser sanctions could not be effective against the plaintiffs proceeding i and yet the district court didn't consider any of those expressly saying that dismissal was the only effective sanction because he was proceeding i f p so even if the court thought that some sanction was appropriate here it should've considered one of the other alternatives before or can before dismissing the case and nd despite i believe speculation that america fabricated his knowledge of the dodo and its st name brock never denied that he was the prison guard issue or that he did what he was alleged to have done this just can't be the case where the court thought that the plaintiff names the wrong person as the doe defendant and if that is what animated the court then that's even more reason the court no where mentioned they had thought that admirer fabricated this testimony and brought never deny that it was him who handcuffed admire he only denied wrongdoing and in any event at the court thought that admirer fabricated his testimony court must explicitly make it excuse me make an explicit finding of bad faith or willful misconduct before imposing sanctions under its inherent power and the cases on which our police rely from this circuit to suggest that inference is appropriate  consistent with those other cases in both cases the district court made explicit findings of bad faith or willful misconduct and i'd like to move to that to the nd issue here the exhaustion of remedies issue regarding ed meyers history with oil for if he had any and it well verge reputation at the prison that would have provided more insight into the reason that admire feared retaliation if you found out if he continued to press the issue act to impose a different century but it was required and it was an abuse not to do that she certainly she considered monetary fines and consistent with this court's prior decisions whether it's to hoskins decisions of this increase decisions where there she decided she decided there wouldn't be appropriate for him it wouldn't be in an adequate punishment but she decided it wasn't appropriate because of the nature of the of his conduct of his misconduct this was she found that if it well three withheld the st name for a the court itself and because of that that's the reason i think she believed that the the sanction of dismissal prejudice was the appropriate sanction she did consider the other one could have given a monetary fine but this court has recognized before that such a fine often will not be adequate punishment there is i'm not aware of any authority whether it's the evans because this case or any other the choir is the court to lay out a catalogue of all the other possible sanctions and then to go through and discuss eleven months show showed that he repeatedly withheld this information that he claims that he had he claims that he knew this information before he ever said i'll file this case in the st name along immediately within a few weeks filed a motion denying that motion but explain you have leave to refile but you have provided as much information as possible about the gender the found was a very clear and plain instruction existant with what was obviously the entire purpose of that case  then over the next several months he again every court filing where there was this motion to compel after that his reply and support his motion to compel it each time he already has other motion to substitute when he provided the physical description  this is it i'm dismissing the case now unless you do it she knew at this point you have a roster of all the idea of the defendants had provided months before you provided it highlighted on it other three were everyone feeling this option and then he came forward with the name when she found out on the subsequent summary judgment sorry that the subsequent summary judgment three d thing spent actually claims that he knew this information along yes the judge the court was clearly frustrated and annoyed more than just frustrated but this court is recognized in the context of rule thirty seven that you can infer that reviewing courts can infer such findings from the findings in the sentient order and it's also consistent with the other decisions which we cite regarding sanctions simultaneously suggesting that he didn't have that information because he tried to complain orally and the officer immediately and violently retaliated if we construe  you don't raise the argument either in his brief or in his declaration he did repeat his allegations in his generation in this so this is the opposition the summary judgment or failure to exhaust in that opposition you were egypt raising argument only the reason he articulated was because he because it didn't the previous process didn't offer any kind of corporate relief for him that was the argument he made d in his declaration he repeats his allegation of risk of excessive force but he never there artfully or otherwise or raised to the court or alerting the court to an argument he was making that the grievance process was unavailable because he felt a fear of reprisal from from over that the argument wasn't there that was the reason that neither neither find that threats or other kinds of intimidation can render the grievance process unavailable thereby excusing a failure to exhaust your administrative remedies in this circumstance in circumstances where a person of ordinary firmness under those place by several guards and in contrast to our case there was and then also allegations about them coming afterward saying you're lucky it could have been a lot worse for you here there is no l b he made no allegations and generation but ober it said anything to him and all the allegation is his underlying allegation that excessive force are taking place that he had sought he had assaulted him but the theater was no sort of connection it or to some sort of threats or intimidation that if you used to even at the time you see was he not all in all he did was basically raise an objection during a shakedown but but but that doesn't because an assault took a legibly took place at that quinn time that doesn't create a connection that therefore the assault is somehow i e a threat of a retaliation future versus a cop a case where you need a formal notice of complaint and then the group of guards ambushed allegedly ambushed  make your life a living how or we're going to we're going to file false claim against you well he's already had made his mind up in l if you ask me this if it was you know if the allegation is true but process just based on his allegations of the excessive force it's going to create a new a new exception to the exhaustion or inmates that when they make excessive force claims essentially that they can call so therefore just meet your hearing and whether or not that creates a fear of retaliation or would render the process unavailable instead the courts so far at least of all recognize this exception in areas where you have some sort of intimidation or fear a clear record connecting the action itself with a reprisal of some sort of threat that is connected with the formal grievance process you know and they simply haven't raised those kinds of allegations here misconduct with regards to the nd claim against the nd claim against the john doe defendant mr burke and mister brock that he needed to reverse that claim if you wanted to address the prior interlocutory rulings the catalog of possible other alternative sanctions instead she found that this was the only appropriate sanction under the facts of the case which is consistent with what the evidence because it's case you have evidence because this case they say addressed  circumstances of the case there are obviously if someone's refusing to answer a question refusing simply revive something the discovery the threat a threat or perhaps a minor sanction can deter them and basically force them to comply or face are waiting for defendants to respond to his his discovery requests and even more if you if you give credence to admire statements that he didn't receive the roster until february of tw so it's not quite quite eleven months i also want to touch on what your honor judge roemer said earlier i think you hit the nail on the head here that the district court did essentially create a penalty on  only explanation was that that was mister admire it was proceeding in from the populace that's not sufficient under this court's precedent and would in fact create like i said earlier a two tiered system of justice for those who can afford financial sanctions that there could have been no excuse for that and it would have been it was plainly deliberate and in hoskins the court found that that the plane to head amid his litigation history on his i f p forms despite clear and explicit instructions on the form to provide all of his litigation history that's quite different from here or were again there is no indication that admires conduct was intentional or deliberate and he had no no benefit from acting in such a availability of remedies in the summary and say that to the defendants enough to ace of admires raising the issue in his declaration did not reply and say anything or provide any evidence as to why his claim would lie he would have had remedies available to him so the district court had only before it admires declared statement that he feared reprisal based on wild birds standard by conducting a peavy hearing and again for example whether admire had any history with eldar or whether burke had some kind of reputation at the prison that would have made it such that any other prisoner would have done the exact same thing and nd i guess just to reiterate the point we can't say for sure without hearing whether  whether an objective whether the object under the objective standard m r would have been deterred from filing a grievance this is a matter of procedural failure and the process matters particularly in cases involving important civil rights go with the thinks of the court for your your your law for his work on this case thank you to both counsel in the case will take it