medical classification without even examining him to determine whether or not his disability had changed so so you're you're you're asserting that that he is saying he was retaliated for filing the issue was remedied in two thousand and seventeen but he still had this other claim and after seeing their progress his wife reached out to the prison officials and when she did so the response was that the prison officials told her that they would be responding his medical classification so it was his follow up on the accommodation request jackley and when you use the word claim are we talking about the same thing as a grievance is there a difference but the district court hearing never even addressed her retaliation claim and as to his failure to accommodate claim the only reason the district court gave for rejecting that claim was that ryan heard and had not alleged total you're at a bit of a disadvantage because you haven't even had an opportunity to respond to this case at all yet has been correct correct it is a bow unusual procedural posture in this case was dismissed on initial review or so we were give this case full examination of the legal issues that were raised by by the parks and so i think procedurally that's why why we're all here and i think  hey this doesn't necessarily state a constitutional violation and we went through through that analysis and i get that that's not necessarily kind of raised or framed up the way it should be but the point in this case was that you ok mr wright are we will give you a cell in the unit which has your privileges and will put you there will be a toilet in yourself will put your a close to one that that the accommodation what the south they don't have that privilege alone with that that might be the ultimate resolution of this case right but isn't the question here whether there was a valid claim stated yes yes well i think and i think the court is allowed to read in due to what was stated in how i view the case is you can't have it if he's into special unit where going to the other offenders get those privileges but mr right heart does because he needs a special toilet can you make that accommodation and i think what that the lost not absolute that because you're somehow entitled to you need a toilet in yourself and get everything else that you're entitled to i think i question is more whether or not there's a legitimate reason for what the prison did in the prison put in there was because the needs of the letter the south not because he doesn't get privileges just seems to me the the problem offered the spot the time to be commendation to with the realization i think in the prison environment in the records full of we can't give you the privileges you want in this unit because otherwise senators are going to say why does right her get these privileges and the rest of us stopped and it's kind of implicit in our prisons management decision and i think that what i thought i thought the record shows and i'm not sure exactly where it is but that in fact they did give him some of the privileges of eventually i don't believe that to be the case i thought he retained the i mean i think i think i thought the prison said eventually not an all or nothing situation if you're a while six you get these privileges because a for certain reasons we give you a three in this in the in the unit with the toilet that we there's reasons we can't give  other three i don't think it was necessarily let's get it part of the problem is prisons are notorious for switching love numbers and housing and numbers and they do offer blood so i apologize for that but i thought they said we could g higher level privileges we could move you to the unit without a coil that we put in your toilet but there wouldn't be one in your size i thought that was the proposed accommodation to him and i think that the it passes initial review and we would say to the court will judge and motion to dismiss what he said failure state claim because we're following his medical directive has he said it but why isn't there a number of  stated a retaliation claim i think he doesn't state of retaliation clay because a we what we have offered it we had a legitimate reason for his placement in the unit he was placed allegations is the claim that he was denied access to a toilet his medical evaluation or is limited activity notice was a follow up there's no kind of underlying subsidy it's just they think they treated full record of what what the prison did throughout the grievous process and in this case they did give mr ryan her a reasonable alternative the one that bit them are that was at least possible and that is giving him a rest room or giving him an toilet near this and that in that's what's important i think that's what's driving the court here is that there is nothing that could satisfy mr reinhart that presents a constitutional issue it simply is his personal requests so we assert that there are certain there are adequate facts and laws to support the initial review dismissal by judge darby and would certainly assert that  a way of looking at a handicapped parking spot as special treatment but it is really just putting people with disabilities on an equal footing and that is all that he is asking for here is that is just ability the accommodated so that he can enjoy the same privileges that he would otherwise be entitled to  time thing that he is only you know that it flares up at different times and that there is no evidence that he needs to be had a bathroom in his cell when the condition is not active but that is not what the a t f requires what all of the requires is that it disable him relationship and there's a malberg ation to enter into an interactive process about the reasonable combination and i don't know how that worked how would that or how should that work in a prison setting were usually everything's handled through a grievance procedure prisoner files or grievance you get a response you may appeal it to another level is does that factor in at all in this case so you know the sort of our ability for  thank you thank you thank you