that also as far as degree mr to owe me money i have not seen any progress check out what i'm talking about i want my money ok i'm not the only one that money has be thought that you had not pleaded sufficient facts in your complaint to state a claim and now i'm going to focus on your race discrimination claim in the papers you filed with the district court you provided some more facts but you told the district judge that you didn't want to amend your complaint and i'm not sure i understand why you said that because allowing you to amend might have allowed you to plead the more facts that were missing why did you not want to plea amend your complaint amend my complaint one wrote on january in january all right let's assume for a moment though that even your amended complaint was not sufficient but that your papers showed that you had more facts why didn't you want  of civil service and then the non title some claims are barred by sovereign immunity so that lose that title some claims against stocks but those came claims fail because the plaintiff's amended complaint and other papers opportunity to amend as to the title seven claims against docs because even if this court were to consider those supplementary allegations they still would fail to state a claim because in within those papers there is still no so it does seem that the district court did give the plaintiff the benefit of doubt and consider certain supplementary allegations again our position is that those allegations are outside the record but even if we were to consider them  basis for the district court's decision not to allow another amendment because the point of has had an opportunity to present her full case that occurred that was in this opposition to the motion isthmus this is what the nd amendment complaint would look like but even promotion with a general assertion that race was informing the decision to pass or over as she then also alleges that  race played a part in other failure to promote in the in the work environment so to that extent why isn't it at least possible in may she says that promotions were not generally not awarded to african american or hispanic employees but rather to caucasian or indian candidates so i mean why isn't that enough to at least played a role in those particular decisions then there's this general allegation that at to conic we have a situation where people of people who are caucasian and individuals from india are advancing at a far faster rate but that allegation isn't  here that there is this general addition that certain individuals are in advancing at a faster rate but there's no allegation that these employees are similar and similarly situated to her that she's  but more or less well qualified and that they were of other races that's that's i mean this is not a plea yet this is what she puts in her opposition papers and  you know together with what presumably would be some kind of statistical showing about the general promotions and positions based on race the state maintains that this is even if reconsider which we don't think should be considered it's still insufficient i believe your honor might be referring to the mailroom position in that position within her paper she even states that the  reason she was given a reason for why she was denied that position which is that the other candidate had more experience then there's another position which i believe is the opposite to calculations position that one she didn't actually apply for which is also within this paper and then there's yet another position which she was rejected for because the position had to be filled from a transfer or reassigned list and she admits all this was within this this particular document so what we have are these positions that are mentioned but there are reasons that she even provides that are unrelated to race and then this general conclusory allegation that it seems that dogs is  a place where people who work accuse in indian tend to advance more quickly now we also have certain remarks within this paper from her docs colleagues  but these remarks also don't show any sort of discriminatory animus and are not even related to race age or disability she says that many of her colleagues had told her how many times have you tried for a promotion and did not get it well that reflects i suppose sympathy from her docs colleagues that she hasn't been promoted she's been denied promotions and the state shares that simply but that still isn't enough to sustain a title some claim my right that the determined right perhaps your honor and this goes to the the exhaustion industry remedies argument no it is true that the exhaustion of industry remedies is an affirmative defense it's a way just your own but this this opposition doesn't clued positions that she's applied for but none of those positions are within the three hundred day window so it's it's still it's still a problem because we don't have any themselves or rather as some kind of general evidence showing that the timely denial should be viewed as discriminatory because look at the pattern that's happened right yes the amended complaint that added c s e as a party are under the state law the taylor law as with regard to those complaints the court the district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that there were no additional federal cause of action or potential claims against c s e alleged in the amended complaint further with regard to whether or not looking at the substance of the duty of fair representation claim the allegations in the complaint alleged any possible claim for relief the district court properly determined that there were no such facts in support of any allegations even considering it on the merits finally with regard to the fact that ms dims is a pro se litigant in reading her opposition papers to the motion to dismiss c s e i took the position that it could be perceived as an attempt to amend to file a nd amended complaint and for leave to do so and provided a response to all of the allegations contained therein to the extent that allegations were ever brought against the s c a c s a responded indicated that that should not be permitted because adding her allowing her to file a nd amended complaint to bring those allegations against c s e and or to request that the district court hear the substance of the improper practice charge would have been inappropriate and to the extent that the court analyzed it that way and denied what appeared to be a motion seeking leave to file a nd amended complaint its  position that that should also be affirm carries it doesn't provide enough you know in time or area to put down everything and that's why i have opposition everything should have been considered and done of close to my case