denied adequate medical treatment by prison doctors or severe pain ultimately he was referred to an outside provider he was diagnosed with throat cancer his voice box part of his tongue and neck muscles were removed and he has  andrew delisting the doctor who was one of the defendants in the case so our submission prior to last monday was that that mr daniel did all that was required of him by by the california code of regulations that is to  the problem and the relief sought and he went through the entire process including up to the director level and was denied or actually was midway through the process he was ultimately sent out but it was from one line you come within bottler nine we come with him but asked for judicial notice of of that we appealed both to the to the to the president and to the department of corrections the partner of corrections responded untimely and you have to go to the institution we have gone and that's why i  this administrative appeal and and i don't know what more i thought requires them to for the president to have an opportunity to address the problem the problem was the treatment and they sent him out for treatment just me please the court good morning my name is brad solomon and i'm from the california attorney general's office and i represent the a pelleas in this matter first of all your honors this case does not fall within the case the butler case is an extremely narrow decision in our case and that says specifically that as a precondition to filing your grievance you must approach the inmate show attempts to resolve the grievance informally with the involved staff and that is a grievance not specific individuals being named now this is an interesting case in that it's not as though some of these present or even cases grievance cases we find that there's an allegation that the guard is mistreated or overreacted or whatever that's not the problem here the problem here is that he said i was suffering least symptoms and i tried to get the doctors to pay attention for me and they wouldn't well he went to these very doctors and they wouldn't at least that's his allegation now are you saying that as a precondition to filing a grievance he's got to go back to these very same doctors and say i'm about to file a grievance against you absolutely he needs to put the what possible purpose will that serve the purpose that it serves is that it puts the president on notice as was the intent of the p r a that there is a problem within the system that needs to be allegation it's more than that your honor i believe that it's also saying that the treatment i received from specific individual doctors was improper and whether that specific treatment was improper or not were late to his grievance and his eventual claim main he did not name them as individuals involved in the issue which he was grieving if i just might your honor if we can just remember that the p l o are a is a federal statute it supersedes the state requirements with regard to said and that's the lesser standard taste the ground case which we're not even relying on we're relying on the six circuit encourage which clearly says there is no doubt about it you must name the individual defendants brown has the same exact standard and it says and i'll point the court to the exact page where it says it it says on page twelve zero seven twelve the weight of the opinion section one thousand nine hundred seventy requires a prisoner to exhaust all available administrative remedies and implicit in that requirement is an obligation on the prisoner to provide those officials who will pass upon the grievance all the relevant information he has including the identity of any and of officials he thinks they're wrong ten you have to name names if you know the names  identity is different from meaning put yourself in the position of the prison officials receiving the documents from him where he is described the position of these doctors is there any way that they see he's gone to every doctor that that prison has on literally tens if not one hundred exchanges over the course of a couple of years and they have to decipher what the what the specific grievance is this is a section one nine hundred eighty three cause of action it's being brought against individuals in their individual capacity there isn't least a right of those named defendants to be put on notice after prison level that they're going to be the subject of a later one nine hundred eighty three action that's one of the purposes direction of the use form six zero two and i believe that that's what he did is that correct right you're on and on that is as described problem and he describes the problem to be our doctor  chief medical officer i have seen the doctor numerous times about my possibly having throat cancer for more than a year now i have been complaining about how bad my throat hurts and i can barely eat or drink anything i was told that i was to be sent out to the hospital to have my throat checked out he's described the problem now you're saying he's seen every doctor in the chrism how many doctors is that there were eight on that unit your doctors and the you're telling us that the prison can't go to my question was are you telling me that the prison can not go to a staff open his fall and find out which of the eight doctors he has talked to that's correct they don't know what specific instance he's referring to well he's talking about the whole course of conduct he's seen if i go to a clinic and i see a different doctor every time and at the end of the year i have not been treated you don't think that all of those doctors are potentially culpable you know that's been our yes so what's wrong what's different understand what a prisoner is supposed to do a prisoner goes to the regulations he's given a form and that's what he fills out now i'm trying to understand your concerns which are that individual doctors not have adequate notice and yet when i look at this form he's alleging a problem that doesn't seem as a matter of common sense hard for the hospital staff to understand that whoever worked on this guy may be potentially at risk if in fact they neglected to a don fly and treat a throat cancer does that seem like such a leap of cognition i think it's discounting the quantity of these grievances that the prison faces and if they would have to go back and go through every single file and determine what specific business out of dozens that that prisoner is referring to it would be impossible for them to put on the form and then if i the doctors if this is such a pervasive problem and then a fight the individuals who you think have mistreated you i think for the same doctor is it's my understanding they to the record you don't know that i can't say beyond my general understanding and even if they are given the name of the doctor they're supposed to keep a record in their own file the doctor they see six months ago the doctor they saw a year ago and asked their responsibility but we know in this case he did know the doctors because he named them both in the complaint directly after the grievance procedure took place there more than one chief your honor i don't believe he said the chief medical officer was involved in his care whether he did was he directed his appeal to those individuals there was no there was no there were no facts whatsoever indicating what doctors were involved in his care he didn't he didn't name that chief medical officer in the appeal he just directed it to him and i love how cold regulations title fifteen thirty four and they do  for distinction the same regulation title section thirty eighty four point two applies in both cases thirty three eighty four of the court recognised as described the problem in the action requested in terms of the provision be about talking to involved staff how much clearer can it be for them saying for the for the for a year for more than a year i've been complaining about my throat to the doctor i mean who else is the control of the involved staff there particular  making me rethink what my question was i just trying to find out when he said in his form the doctor was there anything to suggest he was isolated on a doctor or that it was a generic term generic ok thank you except that you how easy that once yes but but later in his appeal and it's not on page twenty six of the record he does name dr becker when he gets to the third level of appeal so so the whole notion of of getting the information that ultimately calling it to the attention of the partment he did that and then and as i said the other doctor was one of the doctors that signed off on his group and in terms of the informal nature of this thing if you haven't been formally talked to the doctors they could have rejected his grievance out of hand instead the doctor says i'll be glad to see you and report if this is medically indicated that was in september of two thousand he still is not out of there until they finally stand him out a doctor had mistreated him in the prison would under this regulation the only that at the meeting that's contemplated were the inmate initial attempt to resolve the grievance informally with the involved staff with that typically be a one on one meeting where only the doctor involved and the prisoner involved would be present it's my understanding that in any context when you're grieving against an employee of the prison that you meet specifically with the involved employer and there's nobody else present i can't i can't answer that ron i don't know senior person is involved in the through proviso or of the involved i don't know your honor thank you very much the case of daniel versus california department of corrections is now submitted for decision