little just had not seen and that's pretty impressive at your case it is basically a ninety nine percent case their case is a one percent case and that they're and they're not they're not that interested  but you can be assured that we are to i suspect a lot of those folks were billing for being here and they couldn't bill for being here for you're here again would have to be very creative i think we're ready great thank you judge livingston my name is ben fleming i represent appellant anthony rimando and may please the court in case after case this court has stated that complaints by pro se litigants must be construed with particular generosity and that the factual allegations in those complaints must be interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest likewise this court has repeatedly stated that process a litigant is must be given every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that they have a claim and that so long as a liberal reading of a pro se complaint shows any cursory superficial review of the complaint and overlooked key factual allegations including mr manas claim that a correctional officer tampered with all his legal mail as a result of that review the district court did not appreciate that mr amano either had alleged or could allege valid claims  officer ever in particular tampered with legal mail which is to be clear to be sure not a specific allegation or detailed allegation but it's certainly a broad allegation and one of the things that this court has said when the court is considering a pro se complaint is look to whether the factual allegations in the complaint are broad enough to support a legal theory might be the legal theory the litigant him or herself as advanced might be a different legal theory that the court sees and think that a district court should give some attention to but as long as the allegations are bro where he was being kept deprived him of all phone contact with counsel over a period of years that stretched from twenty thirty into twenty fourteen again broad and open to interpretation of the allegations too broad i don't think so judge by reasonable notice well i don't think so judge and i think the supreme court in ericsson and this court later in the key corp case made clear that pro se litigants don't need to demonstrate specific facts in their complaint and as long as the defend it on fair notice of what the nature of the claim is that sufficient in the process setting in when you say in the pro se setting aren't you really saying at this stage of the litigation that is this is dismissed  district court right that's correct actually so maybe these allegations would not suffice if the defendants were served and they filed a motion to dismiss on this ground but of course if the if they filed a motion to dismiss then the plaintiff wouldn't have seen what at least somebody said was a problem with his complaint and might have been in a position to say oh i can solve that and ask for leave to amend and we'd be in a very different posture  wondering is it's not only that he's pro se maybe at some later stage in the proceedings this complaint would still be held to be insufficient if the point of didn't take steps to fix it in some way but here we're dealing with a suicide bomb to dismissal so i agree with everything you said judge lynch for about three different reasons one reason is that this was a screening dismissal and mr amano had no notice one way or the other of any of the deficiencies the district court found his complaint and he had no chance to amend and we cited all the precedents in our brief of why that sort of dismissal without at least even one chance to amend is generally disfavored there's also the particular there's also the fact that the district  didn't seem to spot the legal theories that we've put to the court in this brief the there's no citations to authority in the sole paragraph that analyzes mr amano his claims it's it's all very conclusory so we're not sure really what the district court or didn't think but then there's the fact that as we described in our brief the standard for pleading a legal male claim based on the denial of a little incarcerate person's right to the free flow of information the standard is not all that high in washington view james in davis figured this court stated that two instances of male tampering in circumstances that suggest a policy of censoring inmates male unjustifiably that gets you over the pleading stage so we think on a generous reading of mr modest complaint handwritten and difficult to read though it is he gets there but we certainly think that with a chance to amend he would get there and that's also true of the phone privileges context even though that's a slightly less developed claim in the circuit setting and judge reggie in the birth case which we cited page fourteen our brief followed those out of circuit precedents and found that a claim had been validly stated by a prisoner who was at the brooklyn house of detention rather of a pretrial detainee but again do we have to decide in this case that such a claim does state as a matter of law a claim for relief or do we only have to say at this stage that it shouldn't have been dismissed at the screening stage because it's to me if this is an open question in the circuit it would be very odd for us to decide it one way or the other based on one side of briefing or based just we don't think that that's a good claim and so forget it when it hasn't really been subject to testing in the district court now you certainly don't have to write that type of opinion judge lynch we think it's open to the court to give some guidance to the district court on remand specifically because the district court did not seem to appreciate that piece constitutional claims were out there and implicated by the factual allegations so what about now you don't have to squarely viscerally juncture is that is that wise i mean we could vacate and send facts saying that there was an error in the district court for not giving  e a petition per se plaintiff an opportunity to amend and then there would be an opportunity for service of the defendants and some adversarial testing of the complaint and we have no quarrel with that  approach judge livingston it's just that because this is because we have got so little from the district court we thought more might have been better than last in the circumstance unless there are any further questions of rest on my briefs thank you very much and thank your firm and district court to appoint you we were not suggesting that judge lynch i thought as much i was hoping not but i thought that's what that's where i read it ok so mr ramana is currently incarcerated the five points correctional facility which believe is in the finger lakes region and it's halfway between rochester and syracuse and that someone who could see him in person would probably be ideal and st