first with respect to the res judicata question the defendants can see that the illinois court of claims could not and that's did not decide mr macdonald's constitutional claims therefore as a result the district court erred in giving the wrongful behavior could not be reasonably expected to recur so mere cessation is not enough under this court's cases and nor is they must make some showing that it's a part of a broader policy and they must show that it's it's what the policy was before whether there had been a policy change as required by this cases whether it was permanent ad hoc or temporary what would happen if there's a new warden in place and all of these things go to their burden and they're simply not met here so this court should not hold given everything and sort of the concessions in this brief it in the defendant's brief that it actually makes sense it would be efficient and fair to just send everything back down and go ahead and let this case unfold on a clean slate where you know mcdonald can amend they can raise whatever affirmative defenses they have will have discovery in and proceed as it should have but did not before i don't know if this court has any other questions about the collateral estoppel issues that we sort of went back and forth on the briefs i'm happy to answer any questions about it and i  just one point to the extent the court wants to consider it the collateral estoppel affirmative defense needed under this court's cases in walker v thompson and other cases to be certain and unmistakable on the face of mr mcdonald's complaint but it was decidedly not on the face of mr mcdonald's complaint he only mentioned the fact that his claims had been brought in the i c c but as we all recognize those claims can be subject to priest or contest oh but he mentioned nothing about that finding just like the defendants who didn't raise this below and just report it didn't address it the collateral to stop the offense needed to be unmistakably clear on the face of the face of his complaint and it just wasn't so unless this court has other questions i would just ask parrot claims are all barred by the doctrine issue preclusion councils spoke during her initial argument about whether or not this issue is forfeited because the district court relied on claim preclu factual issues in this action in addition plaintiff did address the issue of issue preclusion in their opening brief and so there's no prejudice to credit fighters have appealed that court of claims decision within the illinois where it says yes the plaintiff could have appealed the decision as to whether or not the procedures complied with due process in a common law pretty also raised issues about whether he whether his work prayer rugs were stolen there whether he didn't get didn't get and the court of claims is an extension of the legislature that just processes claims there before it so under illinois law plaintiff it's true couldn't have appealed the merits of done on decision but he could if if he believed that the i guess that obit or you're saying well if you're preclusion looks to whether or not there was a decision as to these issues and here there has been decisions as to these issues the court of claims decided these factual issues and make rendering yes and the proceedings are again subject to the same procedural rules and protections as as a judicial court and it and if not only is there the ability to obtain rehearing through position for a hearing so i would not allow him to file a federal constitutional case well he can see the extent that he's relying on any facts that have not been already been resolved by the court of cl claims could have made a decision under the whether or not the state had complied with the illinois administrative code and defendants agree that that the claims other than the friday prayer cassette tape and prayer rug claims weren't presented before the court of claims and therefore those should go back to the court of claims to decide those three issues and therefore the claims which rely on those three factual issues are barred by issue preclusion in this proceeding but does he have any claims that are that were before the court of law oh yes yeah he raises claims about whether the defendants were allowing people just allowing other inmates to steal food that were dedicated to muslim and it's about whether or not they're providing   whether or not they're allowed to clean the area in which they conduct friday prayers and that muslim the events are often canceled for christian of us so those limited factual universe that should have been taken in mcdonald's favor it's clear that the defendants could not have met can't meet their burden of showing the collateral estoppel affirmative defense in this court and i mean to give you example as a threshold matter to first run through the buckhalter task defense counsel defense counsel referenced it they bear the burden of showing those but because of this limited record there are only a few facts in the record that even speak to it at all we and then let him amend let them raise whatever affirmative defenses if they still have them and let the case go the way it should have from the beginning so then so given the burden is here and what they were obligated to show all we ha mcdonald statement that he was he so i discovered and was denied discover we know that he could not appeal this on the merits and all of these questions fundamentally go to the question of whether issue preclusion is appropriate because the body that was considering you trace it back it's always whether the procedures were available to that litigant in that perspective a procedure and you look at each case individually and here they don't have any information about what happened below it could have been a five minute rush job hearing i mean there was he did say th