please the court my name is jennifer parkour with the attorney general's office on behalf of appellant i'd like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal right in central question raised by this appeal is whether or not congress intended anything by enacting ameliorate the problem promptly filtering out provost claims and reducing the burden on federal court and creating i'm at an ministre to record which details the contours of the controversy in the event that litigation is in this is necessary context of the present administrative review process the issue of exhaustion was not raised or the failure to exhaust was not raised for the first time in litigation unlike the case that respondent its obligation at the third level of review to deny the appeal for  that's how appellant respond to that particular question to protect the and talked integrity of the exhaustion mandate which the supreme court has now held is not subject to exception and it's absolutely mandatory exhaust within the meaning of the p l r and in this case as you are aware plaintiff filed an untimely appeal which at the third level of her view was properly rejected after that the second pursuant to the p l o res exhaustion mandate as interpreted and confirmed by the supreme court plaintiff therefore failed to exhaust and should be barred from proceeding with this action in federal court according to so that i understand your position you're it your  invoke its filing requirements and permitting the inmate to proceed to federal court  is wanting to file a complaint about numerous events numerous decisions which occurred over a ten month period of time this is not withstanding that in butler the court further than that at least as i read the case the idea behind this grievances to give the prison an opportunity to solve the problem for the coming to federal court and this actually allows the sta to do that if they buy into the program which the states have so it isn't like their social security claim it's to give notice and then they have their own way of handling it and it seems to me that butler tells us that once the prisoners aware of the problem then that's all that needs to be done to comply and people can come to court after that if i'm interpreting both the wrong tell me wh i i don't necessarily think your interpret butler round i think that in this case though it's not dispositive in that the inmate in this case is complaining about a series of events which occurred over a ten month period of time prison was unaware of the problem that the represented prisoner was calling to their attention i think the person was aware of the problem to the extent that he articulated it in a limited grievance two very distinct problems the first one being the lack of a referral to an orthopedic specialist the second and entirely distinct one being the subsequent alleged delay in receiving a particular form of treatment butler the problem i have an orthopedic problem i have a back problem why isn't after the question why does he have to give the details so long as you've told the prison that this is my complaint i have a back problem it's not being taken care if something is vision happened there was a delay in taking care of my back or they didn't give me shoes for my condition exactly i mean at the time you complain about butler then each time there's another what he has to file and then a grievance individual case in this case for instance i think that it would be reasonable to argue that every time he sought attention you know the referral to an orthopedic specialist you could argue that that all constitutes a single complaint issue in the remaining time  really is to initiate the process if it's a continuing violation right yes or i don't think nor everything that went on up through where the district court sends it back yesterday and the district court opened that and basically filed this complaint and pursued all the way through the third level and once he received a response from with their level he filed a complaint so your argument is as long as a grieving and engage in the process the it you know if they waited several years before they before they filed without any reason for doing so that certainly will not satisfy exhaustion as i mentioned several several of the the done is of no consequence to whether or not he did it in this case he did fail to exhaust he need not have waited for the district court ordered to tell him that he was on notice of his obligations to comply with title fifteen by all the president has to do was acquaint them with the problem if if the president has certain procedures and he lives out there that's fine but that isn't that isn't a condition preceding filing in the court seems to me that's what they're saying there is a very strong correctly it's only two pages well i wouldn't argue that you're reading it incorrectly i just i see butler as just as being distinct from what the exhaustion mandate requires the exhaustion exhausted mandate requires that an inmate comply with the state's a ministry of grievance process butler holds that north or for an inmate to do that in california he need only set forth the nature of this problem and not without any consideration of the specifically address that and if you are it doesn't seem that butler addressed an issue of timeline that limited itself to two requiring that an inmate describes a problem we submit in this case that the inmate described only a part of the this to a back and generally it was the same problem so i'm not sure you can hang your hat on distinguishing butler that way you know that argument from my perspective is that it didn't address the time in another panel that case in it seems to me that maybe it will be very important on how this case comes out you agree i entirely agree with you in fact that case was  yes i would agree as long as that panel identify spell legal issue and rules on that issue as i've characterized it we spend a lot of time focusing on the facts in that case and how to distinguish the facts from the legal princip