he lacked credibility to claim that he did not know that he still had available and shit remedies this is mainly because prior to this appeal he had received letters from that their level stating that he had next steps however we believe that this is wrong for two reasons isn't the issue here were the july thirtieth litter was delivered to mr kerr dina's and that told him that he had to appeal at the second move and not go to the third that is correct that's one  the court determined that since mr kirk seen as received eighteen previous letters with his previous decisions that it was more than likely that he received this in the record the term in the because of the evidence that the regular procedure was was indeed attached i believe it's because it's the c d c s custom in practice to attach this letter yes it is reasonable to believe that it was attached however it doesn't necessarily mean it was attached i mean the pimas make mistakes and therefore this could happen where they send out a letter that the letter is not attached mean we all kind of do that when we send e mails sometimes we forget the taps attachment i believe that mr cortinas is saying that he did not receive this letter this time he received the decision but not the letter but even if mr cortinas did not receive the attached july thirtieth letter he was given notice that his appeal was denied he was given this notice on that front page correct on the on the decision and page and so i guess i'm just trying to figure out he knew how to appeal about his option to appeal a cancellation decision  why isn't that sufficient i mean because he this was not his first one he's had several others as the magistrate judge exactly mr king his argument is that with these eighteen previous appeals he wasn't heavily medicated and did not really understand the process at the time even though he access to the california code of regulations does that mean he has one hour he had one hour a day to go to law library day since he was in solitary confinement i'm not sure if that's really enough for him to really understand the c d c regulations  what needs to be well we've made that determination before haven't we that when like your client have access to the code of regulations and library access that  likely sufficient yes that has been turned by this court before however i i don't think that mr keene is really fully understood his next options to appeal and just because he had dealt with this before it doesn't mean that he doesn't need to be reminded of what has to happen but is that your best argument i know my best argument on its lead is that even if he did receive this letter  his cancellation decision what distinguishes his case from sat sabse cancellation well to be honest i don't really know that distinguish between those two  if if the plaintiff took a reasonable appropriate steps to exhaust his claim and he was precluded from exhausting his claim not by fault of his own and we believe that mr corteen as recently and appropriately took the steps to file his claim he went to the first level second third level and when that was rejected he was precluded from exhausting his claim not by fault of his own but because the on site prison official was not getting him to fulfill this in a requirement which is required for all appeals in the c d c are and if someone is blocking him from obtaining or from from being a part of this interview it automatically going to cancel his his appeal because he's not being asked  to attend this interview he he's not going to be able to fulfill the interview and then it just going to cascade down every time he tries to file an appeal requirement of the p r a is mandatory and strickly applied there is no excuse for mr cortinas failure to exhaust i'll take a court to the facts here mr prettinesses grievance was cancelled at the second level for refusing an interview and he was informed of the cancellation and the reason for the cancellation on the previous one self and a separate letter that was mailed to him those are in the record as you are to twenty five and twenty eight twenty nine and mr quinn has not contest that he received both of those documents a cancellation unlike  the nile is not a decision on the merits and does not exhaust that level of administrative review that rules in the code at three zero eight four point one subsection be so immediate cannot appeal a cancellation to the next level so the question is what is  position to do what he disagrees with the reason for a cancellation of this back up a little bit if we can ok it seems like the district court made its finding that mr cortinas did not receive the july thirtieth two thousand and twelve letter always attach the letter sufficient for us to uphold i guess the finding of fact here it seems like it would be easy mistake not a common mistake for someone to think something is attach i know i for moyers they think they attach something and it's not attacked even though it's there always their practice to attach i'm just i'm a little uncomfortable with that and what's your response to that there's one place one more piece of evidence here at first i stress that this finding was made at the conclusion of will be no hearing where four people testified including mr cortinas and the court's finding was based on a credibility termination about the testimony there's also the actual grievance in this case that was has received the letter that finding was supported by testimony as you said from the third double chief that it's that this little different because there was no one here that said i gave it to him right but where he i know he had it it was like we always attach it so he must have gotten it well it was a factual dispute and the second piece of it evidence that the court pointed to was that the grievance said see attached third of the response that was on the grievance admits that he received a grievance that he read that letter that here yes all that and he says that the letter wasn't attached rate and so the court said that if that really was the case mr prettiness had multiple ways of seeking that response and there is no evidence here that she sought out that response sent a letter to third level there's just no evidence that he didn't receive that response and that's not credible that he didn't receive it in light of the notation but told them to see that it has response your position is that once he saw the letter attach he but our position and the this records factual finding is that it's not credible that at the point where he at the point when he received the letter i'm sorry at the point that he received a grievance once he read that notation to see that eighteen appeals come into play because each of those appeals came with a letter attach so mr cortinas knew when he received a response from a third level or any level really expect this in this case from the second level he got a letter attached he knew expect not only the actual grievance form but six o two but also to expect a touch letter that actually constitutes the official response of c c r did he have access to the california code of regulations does he have library corcoran where he was incarcerated and this letter is not the only piece of evidence as your honor this point i would question that the remedy of challenger cancellation was available there's also the title fifteen and there are two letters in this case that mr cortinas received in response to prior appeals that informed him of the process under section three zero eight four point six subsection eat of how he can challenge a cancellation one of those letters he received on the vendor ninth two thousand and eleven and the second on march seventh twenty twelve just five weeks before he received the cancellation in this case and those are on the record at two forty case during the hearing he asked for the continuance for two reasons so he could request so he can make a motion to compel about some privileged documents that were withheld and so you could subpoena t witnesses the warden of the prison and the person who actually signed the letter but during that would be no hearing he offered to the court that it would be fine of the court review those documents in camera and he offered that those two witnesses they wouldn't add anything to the proceeding so on the basis of that the court proceeded with will be no hearing and you cannot argue now that how often during this time period was he in solitary confinement and doesn't that affect his access or does it that's  ten the procedure if an inmate disagrees with a cancellation was to file a lawsuit and argue that improper screening prevented they made it from existing remedies and that was because back then a cancellation was the end of the line it was a dead end that changed by the time that mr cortinas had filed a grievance in this case in february twenty one i'm sorry and if you have every twenty one two thousand and twelve under section three zero eight four point six subsection he and inmate could separately challenge to even so if it receives a cancellation challenge filed a separate grievance if the person agrees with him then the underlying grievances reinstated you can result that all the way to the third level if the person disagrees with sorry i would he know about the change so in this specific case he had received the letter the july thirtieth letter telling him how to challenge a cancellation he received two other letters in response to pry regulations happens but that's the general way that inmates find out about this and again the test under us vs blake is not i would just like to say that mr curtis is her but credibility was not undermined just because he had received eighteen previous appeals i mean the lower court can't make that determination just because he had seen them before th e fact that he claims that he did not receive this letter even though it said see attached does not mean he lacks credibility to make this claim also the fact that mr cortinas wanted to call the person that signed the letter is important because that person has firsthand knowledge of actually printing that letter out and signing it and possibly putting it in the mail and sending it to whoever you have to go to the  at least they have a first hand knowledge of seeing the letter itself no one other than no one has firsthand knowledge of even seeing this letter we just assume that this letter is part of the decision because this is their custom in practice however if we had the person