without giving him an opportunity to amend s c r the employer has not responded to the second point and is there for waived any argument on it accordingly this this court should reverse and the only issue is which round you choose to it's a broader ground one that will affect more employment mention plaintiffs and present and prevent more early appeals this court has reportedly has repeatedly held  knows what you do what it takes to plead a case these days in the wake of equality mumbly in which is why the the second procedural concern here is i think pretty powerful  f if more is required and there's precedent both ways if more is required than what mr tejpal pled here is there any risk that the procedural errors might have been harmless here at the beach i'm sorry missed the procedural errors might have been harmless here that he would not be able to come forward with additional detail i thought i meaning it would be futile i  that you're not supposed to dismiss a complaint for failure said a claim and not allow amendment if it's futile unless it's unless it's perfectly clear from the record that it can't possibly be amended to state  complaint and and certainly from his complaint you can't tell that this is a slow fastball down the middle of the plate is there an argument here that this error was harmless for now is mr tate due for a look at some of the additional filings he's made to try to explain himself has he played himself out of court or is there potential for a viable claim here it i believe that i believe that the heat that there is that first of all that the that that's the extra stuff is not in the record because it should it was not in the record before the district court below you should be you should be looking at what the district court did based on what they just work out in front of it and he didn't have any of that stuff that mr tate appended to his brief here in this court all that all the dishware had before him was that form complaint with this with  seven lines trying to summarize his claims and and on that grounds yes it clearly was presidential to dismiss without leave to amend without explaining what the problem was it he had the the form that he did the form complaint gave money six lines to state is state the facts and on those six he actually made it seven lines he said he worked for a start s c r for a month in august and september twenty fourth teen c s e r knew he had a disability he was injected sexual harassment and complained about it and he was discharged on september five hundred fourteen and his discharge use your screen atory based on sex and disability and was in retaliation for his complaining about the harassment that that's ample under the rule this court has stated many times including a number of times after what was the disability we don't know may please the court my name is shawn hearing of represent the a clearly as you are medical transportation and we have that you affirm the decision of the district court judge to dismiss this action for the following reasons we think that the court was correct in discretion to determine whether or not and i mean minutes proper i think under the circumstances the district court judge determined that this was not a case that the plaintiffs should have been allowed to amanda's complaint of why what happened right that's correct and then it's dismissed because you didn't provide sufficient detail right when you when you look at the allegations that have been playing it he says that i was hired by the been in on or about august fourth twenty four n my most recent position was a driver trainee defend it was aware of my disability during my employment i was subjected to sexual harassment i complained in no way vale approximately a month later on december on september fi discharged and he concludes that i believe i was discriminated against because of my disability in violation of the a b a my sex and in retaliation is anything missing except the explanation disability yes in addition to not stating what his disability is he doesn't say how a c r had knowledge of that disability he says the alleges that he was subjected to sexual harassment but he does i think there's i have a room in his in the form for that by they add it to additional pages of written handwritten pages of fact to support their claims so that pro se plaintive had the initiative to say well the court doesn't really mean i'm supposed to be this concise in my six of the six lines they've given me in the court's own form right and we should distinguish the cases on that ground rather than just say look when you when it went to judge sue a spontaneous dismissal is a complaint he needs to give the the the a particularly an indigent profile a point of but really any plaintive is entitle to one fair opportunity to amend and fix the problems i thought that's pretty clear from votto from runyon stated in general what we recognise as a claim under title seven in the eighty eight and you do and there's an argument that some detail is lacking i don't understand how you could possibly dismiss without with prejudice  there's that's i think that that's not the it's not the rule is it that that's not the rule nor is it sex discrimination but i think that the argument that i'm making your honor is that he was recently hired haven't been of the same sex terminated with only within only a month's time there are certain circumstances that the court ever held but that if you if you get fired soon enough you can't bring a claim based on an characteristic i think that there would be an extraordinary rule of law i think that there is there's a presumption that  same actor inference right right right and we've said that's not a rule of law that's just something you can argue to a jury right that's correct so you're arguing it to us now as a rule of law i'm not arguing as a rule of law why point is that the district court judge in exercising his discretion looked at this and reviewed this and took these these facts and circumstances in consideration when he haven't you haven't given the facts you haven't explained what the disability is i'll give you a chance to file a new complaint him and make up some of these omissions why would that be the decent thing to do when you're dealing with a pro se certainly think that other judges may have taken a different approach but this judge an exercise in it why wouldn't that be the decent thing to do when you look at again your honor that under these facts are certain not under these facts the facts are missing so why not say to the client if you haven't you haven't alleged facts so i'll give you one chance allege fashion if you can't do that you're asked right why is not the way to handle a case like this again you're out of that is certainly you know why it isn't that the right way to handle a case like this i believe you know i think that under a rule or section nineteen fifteen the judges are giving the ability to screen complaints that they think are