this case is about an overly invasive and unconstitutional drug testing policy it is not about the constitutionality of prison drug testing in general in this prison according the complaint several prisoners are grouped together stripped naked and for say your name in front of each other correctional officers staff in an open air gym not only is mr riley alleging that this is an unreasonable search under his th amendment but that this also burdens his religious rights under the st amendment all that is required at this stage is that mr reilly allege plausible claims and if what mr reilly alleges is true which we must assume that it is at this stage that he has raised serious complaints on e r five hundred and forty five and five hundred and forty six he has specifically said that correctional officers are forcing of prisoners and there are trying to force him to do this in the open air jim he said that district court i believe when he is alleging that he is trying to be forced to go under this specific policy which this policy is forcing inmates to go into this open air gym that he is saying that yes they are trying to force him specifically into the situation ok and so i don't spend a lot of time on meth but you think that allegation is made that he's been requested to comply outdoors as opposed to in the in the medical clinic or at his cell and groups stripping them naked and requiring them to urinate in front of each other staff and other correctional officers so we're saying in that kind of group setting it's not a one on one setting like this court has found reasonable in cases like thompson in that setting we are saying that that makes it unreasonable here in a th amendment violation if we look at the other cases like thompson that is found where a one on one situation is needed we are unclear of any  testing yes your honor we are saying that under cases like hudson versus palmer that's the kind of kind of calculated harassment and kind of kind of severe humiliation and harassment that could be a potential th amendment claim on this point and i just want the amended complaint says a lot about the person confiscating his prayer oil and i don't see any attempt to defend that on appeal i looked into that part of the record it seems that to save time and a paraphrase feel free to correct me at the administrative record so that the parallel was confiscated because your client was found guilty of forging a signature and this prayer oil was from a cannabis provider not a not a authorized provider as that's my summary what i really want to know is are you are you is that part of your st memory claim on appeal that you're defending or me just going with the guarantee testing no your honor we're just going urine testing we have not argued for the prayer or oils ok thank you so much yes specifically the the prison is putting one hundred and fifty inmates into the open air jim he could further specify that number or the number of specific inmates he did not specify a specific number is reason not is reasonable so i guess i'm trying to figure out how that would help i do not believe it would be futile to add that it would specifically go to the scope of the intrusion in the manner which is conducted which  th amendment that was a reasonable search as a reasonable search was a one on one drug drug testing procedure where inmate went to a stall and the correctional officer was eight inches away watching him  in this case so if i if i read that case correctly i think they were analyzing the strip search and the holding in the drug testing kind of an isolated incidents and we're not saying that drug testing by itself or strip searching by itself is unconstitutional we're saying that because here all of this takes place within the drug testing setting where they strip search and strip them naked for some new year and they confront each other in such a large number of construe propose say complaints liberally i think your case law is made would be stronger than that let's say very liberally demand is not educated in the law  order feeding everything all the elements of the claims and what he might please and gave him an opportunity to amend well let me let me switch you let me move you forward a little to the standing argument if we are going to alleges that he had to publicly certainly make it and provide urine but the policy but the policy would require him to and he says is religion doesn't allow him to give genetic material but he definitely says the policy would require him to and he didn't want to do it isn't that true he says that that there is not even a policy but that current i any reason other than safety and security and reasonable under the th amendment in let me ask you because i'm having him a hard time i know i think it's your position he doesn't it doesn't say it and you seem to be arguing that our review of right these allegations is limited to the whore corners  dismissing that and in his objection that's when he added additional information to support his religious claim but here we don't even have him alleging in his complaint this i practice this distinguishing between his st complaint and the nd complaint i mean i don't think it's contested that he's made the allegations center makiya is referring to in opposition to the motion just missed the st complaint he didn't reassert them in the opposition to the  nd motion to dismiss are you relying on bath because if you're not distinguishing well he doesn't allow any he was the court pointed out we can't take these these allegations in your opposition into consideration when we're looking a when the judge decided to dispense you know with prejudice the nd time around that he doesn't have to look at the op what what what mr bradley said in opposition to the to the st motion to dismiss is that what you argue well he had already no your honor and that would be our nd point in his opposition what he says specifically is he's a practitioner of an ancient egyptian religion this is on your cue a wind religious belief warns about giving warned about giving away secret kept and that doesn't rise to the level of a substantial burden on his religion he hasn't planned any facts saying why that belief substantially burden his we will give you a chance to amend to put those facts in the amended complaint yet he still doesn't do that when he amended complaint so at that point the court had broader discretion to dismiss the lawsuit without need to amend and it was correct in doing so because it had given him an opportunity and pointed out these need to be in the record and for whatever reason mr reilly did not  does use words of retaliation and he does raise the issue of retaliation in the amended complaint but that wasn't raised in the initial complaint and so he was never given any to amend to retaliation claim in the amended it did the order of the district court permitting the amendment specifically state no new claims yet and did your honor all any new claims rot must be brought in a separate lawsuit so they did tell him he had a different remedy but he couldn't bring new claims that he wasn't given lead from men in this lawsuit which is what the retaliation   discipline yes that's our position your honor if he doesn't you know he uses the word retaliating or television throughout the amended complaint but be initial complaint does not have any language regarding retaliation is what i'm trying to ask doesn't he describe the sequence of events where he continues to get to layer after layer of this a yes and he refers to the th amendment and double jeopardy and so that was  under that framework he doesn't state that he was given or be ours because of any protective conduct and so that's why there was no retaliation claim alleged in the in itial complaint that was that went to his th amendment double jeopardy claim which is not being challenged on appeal you didn't raise your leg to stand argument for the am not sure i didn't handle the case below but i think that for whatever reason they felt that we had strong defensive already and so at this court again and as you're constitutionally permissible but what he's alleging is different that the method here that the sco and i agree with you there's no allegation anywhere where the district court about one hundred and fifty people but let's just take it that that necessarily because again it have to be and reasonable there's no allegations and they don't allege that they could have meant to allege allegation that it was for any reason other than safety and security they don't allege that this was a recurring routine type of search and so just by adding that number doesn't necessarily make it a crime bankable claim again and as your honor pointed out earlier you have to there other evidence in the record that shows that he was never subjected to this type of search the r v hours he either failed to submit to your analysis testing in his cell or in they facilities the medical clinic and even the desperation of the so if the court and family thought of time and the court didn't have any other questions we would respectfully request that you have from the district court's judgment and dismissal as proper thank you thank you very much does support our position that he did raise allegations to support a possible religious freedom claim also there's a case he cited brumby bogan where this court stated that for pro se plain this is arguing that mr wright he didn't make enough of a statement or a broad statement regarding his religious beliefs in the four corners of the complaint i think that's how she treats walker which however the district court and then dismissed his complaint with out without leave to amend which proby bogans has if there are any facts that show that he can make this possible allegation to support his claim that it's abuse of discretion dismiss to consider not only what he alleged in his opposition to that motion to dismiss but also what mr reilly alleged in his st in opposition to the st motion to dismiss is that your position have i believe that is what walker states i know that walker stated as i have their facts that support a general nucleus a fact that support that claim then it should be enough to put the court and defendants my question asked which complaint are you talking about the st of many complaints ok so when we get to the nd amended complaint please respond to opposing counsel's argument which is the judge said ok we're dismissing this complaint but without prejudice and you need to write in your nd and your many complaint you can only include no new claims that's that's the state's argument so would you respond to that please was this a new was this a new claim in the in the vs hell they said that really poll was made in order to get these prisoners extra protection of their rights as the legislative purpose of relief when he was alleging that his religion was being burdened by the phrase and it was enough to put the defendants in the state on notice of it's really  ourselves in the shoes of the district court judge who was looking at the amended complaint is it your position the bad men didn't comply with the judge on notice that his continued claim was that the method of collecting these urine samples violated his religious freedoms i understand that there were a lot of allegations concerning prayer oils and the district court probably took that as his main religious policy and the fact that he wasn't allowed to bring any new claims in his amended complaint as judge signed saying he is a pro se plaintiff he has no he has no idea what possible claims there could if possible i would like to touch upon the retaliation claims very briefly and the district court dismissed that there taliesyn claim thing that the five up charges were