the next case is green haven prison the new york state history of insisting on their right to practice their religion in places where they may not be welcomed by the powers that be and this is another one of those kinds of cases because most of the rest of the world doesn't always understand ok fair fair enough i just didn't want to use terminology that was it was inaccurate but i understand that the meetings are plaintiffs and i don't think that their standing to raise  realize it may be a secondary question because i think we have the st amendment claims in the case in any event but you agree that at least as far as the individual prisoners are concerned they would have to exhaust their administrative remedies in order to bring a roopa claim on their own behalf they were asking him to ask any of bill old ministering to remedies absolutely you're ok and you have an argument about whether there are available remedies i understand that but i just want to go on and assume for the moment that we disagree with that we may not but assume that we disagree the you want to say that their organisation of prisoners independently can landis i understand that argument that's a separate argument i'm trying to pursue this question of institutional organizations within a prison is this is a right that is unique to religious organizations for example suppose a group of prisoners formed a political association and then claimed that they are rights were personal rights were being violated by the prison could they avoid the exhaustion requirement by saying oh it's not we as individuals who are bringing this it's we as an organization are bringing this claim i think that's an interesting question in the exhaustion requirement altogether as it applies to whatever kind of claims they might have these supposed claims have any kind of collective quality i can't see quite how this would work if the prisoner claims he was beaten or something but with st amendment claims you wouldn't have to exhaust because you could just say i'm bringing this on behalf of the prison independent democrats or something like that not not as as me myself to get my st amendment rights and our st meant rights that case this meant that the statute was being applied in a way that was not previously contemplated and i would add to that this court in united states just a month ago  same conclusion the statutory three just ask and i can i interrupt and just ask you about some confusion i had with the factual claims and factual disagreement between the parties and i understand your position to be that the knock our grievances out affect the class rather they simply require that the individual file their grievances on their own behalf not on the half of the class when it might impact other inmates nd the religious say that that's not all this is about that it's not just a question of on what they have the week it also involves who can participate and the length of meetings and various other issues that divide the parties based on security concerns move the meetings to fridays friday evenings when the quakers objected to that they offered any other weekday evening and that offer was rejected as well as to the contents of that particular meetings what would occur during that that would be left to coordination between the quaker volunteer and the and which respected nields docs offered to accommodate quakers request by holding one of the quarterly meetings as a special event which would allow for a longer meeting would allow for a meal and is consistent with what's provided to other religious groups one special event a year that that has a longer duration and more meals and that goes to the concert one of the rights rather as if i suppose the local catholic diocese was complaining that they wanted to send a priest in for something and there was some dispute about that they're  arguing their own st amendment rights putting aside the real loop the issue and the exhaustion issues relating to the prisoners and their particular organization is there any requirement of exhaustion that you perhaps from a loop of claims regardless of the exhaustion issue correct but the scope of those st amendment claims is narrowed by because certain st amendment claim those with respect to the weekly saturday meetings are raised by the incarcerated plaintiffs only i so what's left is only the quarterly meeting claims asserted by outside groups based correct me on rebuttal but i took it that his principal argument concerns the quarterly meetings that's the only thing he mentioned at least in his oral argument as as an issue that may be the only thing  to those meetings for them so it's the quarterly meetings right the quarterly meetings are the only clangs asserted by the outside religious groups and week schedule caused which the district court had ample discretion to conclude did not show a clear likelihood of success on the merits as required for a mandatory preliminary injunction  there is a substantial difference between there is a substantial difference between a multi hour meeting on a saturday with a meal in terms of those outside quakers and the emissions explained why saturday's meeting time whose security concerns because there was less secure the staff on duty and because the number of civilian quakers attending required extra security to protect their safety and that has to be looked at in the context of the entire institutional setting and the impact that that would have on other proceeding it's saying i have a right and it's been violated i don't see why that's outside the grievance proceeding you may not be able to say i want this to be treated as a class grievance it's an individual grievance representative and in the context of an unincorporated association it can only those who are white in a representative capacity and dots does not allow represent of the capacity is that i'm not sure but i'm not sure that the bet that anybody would own that or should allow that right i mean otherwise you would have the as i was trying to talk about before all you have to do is form an organization of prisoners and then you could avoid i don't know that it's clear to me anyway that if two catholic prisoners said we hereby form the parish of st green haven and we want to bring a claim about the denial of confessions as that parish rather than as to individual prisoners individually saying i was denied my right to confession it's hard for me to see why that would  and unless there are any further questions from any member of the panel we will take the matter under advisement thank you thank you thank you that's the last case on the calendar to be argued this morning so i'll ask the clerk to adjourn court