d because i think it's safer that way the alameda people say no we'll take care of it for you we'll send them and according to the complaint that never happened either they were never sound or they were sent to the wrong place there when they did not arrive in a timely fashion and as a consequence through a series of events she ends up homeless how is there a failure to accommodate a disability i could understand it if they had said listen you're disabled but we're not going to mail in for you you're going to have to carry them yourself this sounds as though almost the opposite will take care of it for you then they feel to do it but i don't understand how that fits with the disability tell you to accommodate he failure to accommodate was after they didn't send her part of the many papers she had her voucher she attempted to find other housing they would not grant an extension on her voucher they made the first they granted initial the on page two she writes how she has trouble with her hands damage to her arm these are letters to the court and then also on page eighteen supplemental excerpt of records she requested more time because she had trouble reading printed documents and correcting them and she needed more time i mean this is if she has trouble reading and writing it's going to be a problem finding section eight housing where there's a lot of paperwork and your argument is that the judge district judge should therefore be on notice and the defendant so therefore be on the others even though it's not contained in the actual complaint about her particular stated in a complaint but she has been barred from seeking relief because through lack of legal sophistication and through the district court spares you know implying a heightened standard for the pleading requirements for a complaint if she did she fall the more definite statement although it was in title the more definite statement this pleading was clearly an attempt to amend the complaint she was active in her attempts to do to follow the district court's instruction she may have been confused because in the original motion for dismissal the defendants also filed them dismissed on their more definite statement in the judge's order he says that she is required to give a more definite statement because of her lack of legal sophistication in attempting to comply with the judge's instructions she states that you know she files this more definite statement but it's clearly an attempt at an amended  she's allowed to do discovery and she's allowed to go forward on our claims and and in there then of a summary judgment she could argue a top point that you know there's the specifics of the case even between the time that she was given granted leave to amanda and through the dismissal she was attempting to to do discovery i mean she wants to get on with her case that the point here is that she has valid claims one example of this is clearly the procedural due i i'm surprised that the appellant well may just say first of all that we last night while preparing for yesterday while preparing for argument i cite checked everything and of course we found this court's state of the client either in her original complaint or if we characterize it as an attempt to amend the complaint but as a rule forty one special for me this there's not enough here being only from for myself i understand i'll try resources something that told the court oh we don't have to keep tracking this thing because now we know what how the plaintiff is going and if you look at the whole record in our case there is not one there are at least four or five orders to amended let's assume that she had and then to follow his orders and amended the three causes of action that he said that she could amend that could possibly state a claim if he she had done that she would have preserved that that issue for appeal but she well i'm not aware of any decision that says we have this other standard that says ok we're going to come back and let you have those you know that you either get thrown out with the bath or you don't in my experience you either can stay to plame or you can't and if you get thrown out on a real well we argued that in our brief if i could just take a minute i have a few minutes  that person we still don't know how and she didn't allege that mirrors there are references in here to handicap their references to i'm handicapped but there is no allegation which she says a lot you know i was what we were the were she says i was actually denied housing and contra costa county because i have a because i have some disability she didn't really she didn't allege that it's an inference that you might draw from all of these other letters to the court  divine what she was what was being said in the complaint so of course it's also my firm understanding that the regs say that you don't get a hearing on the issue of whether you get it whether you're entitled to an extension or not that's and we cited that  other words like i think she says at one point i wanted to hearing on that issue or should have had a hearing or the failure to give me a hearing on my request on and explain another extension that's the denial of my rights but you're not according to the comply with a court order but how does that affect the appeal ability of the earlier dismissed on the merits without leave to him and why can't she appeal that because it's my understanding that the public policy there have been attempts to settle the case in fact the court referred this case to a magistrate judge for a special settlement conference which is another use if you destroy resources and that was a that settlement conference was a total  that you're basically position that she has no claim based on what the housing authority did to her or that she has not stated a claim in other words could she stated plainly as you understand the that time that an error had been made by the district court on that particular claim they never really addressed the euro's factors and so it seemed to me that they were they seem to be saying by not addressing those issues by not addressing those factors they seem to be conceding that if this was  to supplement that you don't have to file a document that says third amended complaint you can file a supplement which is in effect really an amendment if that were done here if you look at a more definite statement as a supplement the district court should have said well she tried to amend your complaint and get back to whether or not that complied with forty one not because of the state amended complaint but because it was in effect a supplement order as a lay person he asked for more definitive statement she tried to give a more definite statement well ok i'm late but not that late and he gave me ten days on the nineteenth of december and the page eighty order was missing besides you're suggesting that he was telling her to file something that perhaps supplemented her original complaint and since she and she's right i don't know i don't know what he had in mind i think he had an i i mean i think you got in mind that she should fil solo with that regard and so it will be a valid opportunity to to proceed with i'd like to address some of these issues with american park and the your decision inactive and therefore it's not a rule forty one b dismissal or because she didn't have counsel what are more definite statement amounted to was a tactical decision to rely on the merits of what she had already set forth which in marin park by the time the plaintiff america park was given an opportunity to amend she had retained counsel at that point and the counsel was part of the tactical decision to rely on the original complaint which in the rule order in october in a december order begins or ten days the court said that that not filing that within the ten days could amount to a dismissal of the case but then the most important most important thing is that we feel that we see has valid claims she needs to have an opportunity to tadic quickly bring these claims this is this you know in with the judge getting the law wrong and this hide and pleading requirements it's clear that she needs to have an adequate opportunity to bring the claims and i'll turn if there are no further questions with regard to the rule a retaliation issue if there are no further question authority is now submitted