se and disabled plaintiff alleges that after her landlords illegally discriminated against her defendant state officials instead of properly investigating that discrimination themselves discriminated against her and intentionally sabotage their investigation resulting in her loss of her housing and loss of her benefits well she doesn't actually allege that it's not part of the difficulty here perhaps she could have mentioned but the complaint that was file doesn't really allege that does your honor i think the complaint construed literally as it must be because she's a pro se plaintiff giving her the benefit of every doubt does say that the commission officials handled her investigation a biased and discriminatory fashion she says that twice she also said that they retaliated against her that they conducted in a grossly inadequate investigation well those are three different things and maybe doesn't make a difference maybe maybe the only issue is whether or not your client should be allowed to amend her complaint to make an equal protection claim point then do you think the district court erred in dismissing at least and they just but i think at the very least the law's clear that to the extent there were pleading deficiencies that defendants raise now those deficiencies had to be pointed out to plaintiff had to be explained and she had to be told what more she needed to do to effect get the complaint over the let me ask you one more question this point is that you say she could plead in one thousand nine hundred three claim which she tried to plead to due process claim and various other claims what nine hundred eighty three could do you think she could plead or in your view was properly put your honor i think first the violation of the quote protection clause again biased discriminatory in later filings which defendants agree in their supplemental answering brief always equal protection what kind of class issue so in later filings to the district court which defendants agree have to be considered in deciding whether to give leave to  d she says that defendants gave a preference toward the japanese landlord discriminator and in other filing says that they discounted her word in her testimony and the word of her main witness because they were jewish because of race exactly race and religion your honor if she were just to plead those facts would that survive them liberally give her the benefit of every doubt as this court has been clear must be done i think that it is enough to state that the defendants here discriminated against her and her witness because they are jew or what but one pleaded facts would make that plausible if we were dealing with since we have to deal in the world  i think this is where it relates to the due process claim your honor and that you claim is really the facts underlying both are related she alleges that they very intentionally didn't consider her evidence or her testimony cited at every instance with the landlord discriminator and taken together with her explanation that this was biased and discriminatory and because she was jewish i think that's enough to state an equal protection claim and allow her to get  discovery of course the district court can manage that discovery process but to get her to discovery so she could prove that she was in fact this criminal yeah i guess you're one step farther then you need to go or you really want to do is to be able to file an amended complaint with the district court dismisses that amended complaint for failure to state a claim because there's it's not plausible or not is not an issue you know in front of us right that's right your honor the law is very clear that so what happens if she goes if we to that i don't know if she'll be represented she certainly will look for counsel and i think that if your representation pro bono is only on the appeal that's correct my representation is an appeal i'm not admit it to you see the difficulty that i'm worried needs to do to plead a complaint she makes very very serious allegations here and serious claims she should be notified of what she can do feasibly to to add the necessary meat to those bones  record instead of holding her hand and giving her those opportunities really did the opposite one week before the only hearing that was scheduled in this case this record canceled it on the grounds that i know everything that's at issue here i don't need to look at it and then claim if you would like i think the district court may need guidance on that the if this come well i'd be helpful to me because i'm not sure what the due process kindness is there some requirement in the fourteenth amendment that a certain amount of investigation off you look for a property interest which is really that the kid what's your property interest property interest is she has a legitimate claim of entitlement to an investigation that meets the bare minimum standards of due process and investigate when you get there from one source that we get that from and roth allows you to look at a variety of sources one source is the agreement between h c or c and what the basically provides the key funding to each hear see it requires a consideration of cause determination for purposes of her suing user is irrelevant is all she gets some determination from the commission she can sue sure your honor she has and she has assumed yes  nelson your honor there were service issues with involving the complainant other filings and my understanding is that it's still pending so could the commission simply say we're very busy in this one doesn't strike us as important as some of versus an investigation but it's a leap from there to say that you are owed no due process at all investigation which is what the found and search this court to rule and this is not a radical proposition i mean we cite cases from the southern district of new york and the eastern district of pennsylvania that find the due process interest implicated here the sky is not falling in those districts contrary to policy arguments of the other side and it maintains a certain minimum level of due process and provides redress in the most egregious instances if you can you know and eleven seconds you want to say yes your honor i'll save my love and second thank you very much we will give you a chance to respond protection claim and i'd just like to briefly address the due process issue before i move the protection issue now we've already argued extensively in our briefs that plaintiff has no constitutionally protected property interest either in a reasonable cause or terminations or the investigation and the commission stands by those arguments but if there is one point i would like to make here is that the court doesn't even really need to reach the question of in what circumstances there might be a protect property interest in an investigation or reasonable cause to terminations because under the facts of this case plaintiff in fact wasn't entitled to anything from the commission because under the commission's own rules specifically why administrat director of the commission has absolute discretion to dismiss the complaint at any time from that from that point the reason for that is the whole purpose of the commission is to assist plaintiffs argument that the commission the commission's position is that the because plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on april april seventeenth two thousand and thirteen before the commission even completed their investigation  and let's let's assume that the commissioners all came in and without regard to race who or religion simply said we don't like this lady and therefore we're not going to investigate her claim or give her a fair you cation would that be a in what her motion for reconsideration says which is that i was unfairly treated because so landlord was japanese american and i'm jewish and they were they favor japanese americans and they discriminate against jews she said that in her initial complaint no more facts than that wouldn't the judge at least have to give her another chance to allege it i think if plaintiff properly alleged it against the individual  do but what's not but what's not be we have a pro se litigant here she just said that and as a judge i might say no no that's not good enough you got to talk about the individuals not just the commission and you've got to have more facts than that but that's not the issue the issue is whether she ought to get a chance to try to plead that it may be a ruhleben violation if she pleads it which may be why counsel doesn't want to represent her next stage that's not the issue the issues should be given a chance to p throughout all of those pleadings plaintiffs made it or or at least to the extent that she alleges any discrimination the claim she was trying to make was against the commission in a very general sense and in fact what she stated was  that she hasn't showed any ability or indeed any intent to articulate a claim against the individuals which is necessary for an equal protection claim and because of that if those are the defense point that she hasn't expressed an ability or an intent to state claims against the individuals i would really dispute that your honor if you take all her papers and you review them carefully and pointing to the to the document specifically the judge fletcher you raised she raises very serious questions of a very very serious misconduct by the individuals at the h c r see those questions she was never able to explore get answers either at a hearing or an opportunity to amend or in any other at least the very bare minimum and adequate investigation is really simple you separate the two for second place i'm interested in what your your opponent said the determination seems preordained by their rules once you file a an indication that they were going to give up but they had made you know cause determination your honor again that's sort of the kind of technicality that well no it's not a technicality in this sense if you're trying to figure out what you're claiming an interest to in an unbiased investigation does it mean you know that that person can sue in gore does the person consume court what does it mean what does it does it disable that person from doing something as you take away some right you know  disabled claim unlike the one here is not going to be able to sue a more sophisticated more resourced discriminator whether an employer or landlord or any other kind and this is set up exactly for that purpose to for what purpose is that purpose to give under resourced claimants and plaintiffs the ability to root out discrimination in the state of hawaii because there is a yes but if you get a little if you get to the legal function which is really kind of a screening involved usually volunteer in a proceeding that has some consequences this proceeding has no consequence what's the consequence to the position or the consequence your honor is that she has to litigate this case by herself without any will she ha prosecution because a person is convicted of a crime when he or she shouldn't be but here it means you know you still got a right to sue letter right you still got a right to sue letter but that what's the consequence the legal consequence on of the due process w but that's my question so what does it deprive you of it deprives you of the ability to have your claim aired looked through and really given the investigation