opportunity to present oral argument today on the two reasons why the district courts dismissal order in this case should be st in the case for mandate for further proceedings st we ask that this court join the unanimous position of the other courts of appeals to consider this issue and hold that federal equitable tolling can apply to the period in which an incarcerated or detained individual diligently pursues administrative remedies that are mandatory under the prison litigation reform act or p equitable polling should apply and my question is what next means seems to me that if we were to do that then we should probably send it back t recommend certainly or are yes we believe that there is sufficient evidence in the record to conclude both mr barber was diligent during the administrative exhaustion period here and that if is equitable tolling is applied to that period that his computer that eighteen complaint was filed within the applicable statute limitations the record here reveals that mr barbour completed the administrative process and completed his steps of the administrative process well within the time limits contemplated by the florida administrative code and then that and that that process concluded on july nd th two thousand and fourteen so with those two facts apparent from the record mr vargas filing of the two thousand and eighteen complaint on june th two thousand and eighteen fell within the four your statute of limitations that said to your honor's point and so to to the extent that this court has questions about any of those factual circumstances or the conclusions that can be drawn from those it that i would say that the pleading that we've been discussing the motion to change venue and reinstate complaint i believe is best read as an objection to the art are given the the posture following mr barber is receipt of the art of war and the fact that it mention that i think in the in the the four main cases that we've cited in our brief for the courts have adopted federal equitable tolling i don't believe any of those decisions rested on state law there are some other cases that we've not relied on as heavily think the the stats the statute in virginia was it was similar and in fact more permissive than the statute that we have in florida where it did not exist that these are the circumstances that our state law provides for tolling at the end of that tolling provision it actually accounts for other extraordinary circumstances in kind of a blanket approach and the court in battle concluded that even even with that language it didn't contemplate equitable polling and so i would  i was suggest to the court that the the remedies under the under tolling exist only to the extent that the court provides them i think they were to the extent the state legislature or the florida courts provide those remedies it i i would know that the supreme court in hardening the strout considered a state law that provided for tolling so the inverse of the situation that we have here and the supreme court in that case concluded that the tolling provision further nine hundred and eighty three is exceptions that apply one of which your honor noted where it is a pure legal question and we believe that the st half at least of the equitable tolan analysis is a purely bill question in this case and could be answered by the court even those rates for the st time on appeal and in fact one of the earliest cases where this court recognized that equitable tolling might apply in these circumstances as the legal case out of georgia that site and every the court to contemplate the possibility of answering that question in the st instance and declined to and that's that circumstance now the reason why the this court should take a different tact than the court did and we'll is for the nd reason that your honor noted which is this issue continues to come up and it continues to pose a substantial burden to a group of individuals who are subject to  and face incredible burdens litigating these actions already and so in the interest of justice and and with the case as a potential to have a enormous impact or importan general impact this court is also recognized an exception to the rule regarding considering issues raised for the st time the appeal and so i would indicate i was just of the court that the both of those rules and the need for for clarity on this on this issue throughout the received at the f c c c on july nd two thousand and fourteen and that's date stamped by the prison officials what it's received so i don't have reason to call that into question but again to  which for which we will borrow state tolling the statutory provisions with that does not apply to bivins actions so i would distinguish that right off the bat and say that we have a controlling statute at issue in this case that didn't control at all for the nd point i would raise t supreme court cases that i think are at odds with that decision the st is be applicable a more in that regard and then the nd one and this gets more to your point about reasoning through cases that aren't aren't exactly on point but the two thousand and ten supreme court decision in holland v florida which actually came out of this circuit where the court applied equitable tolling in the adfa context and while i admit that there are certainly differences between the two statutory  but in that case the supreme court did emphasize the need for is that your limitations that flexible and responsive to the practicalities of litigating in federal court and so i believe that there are lessons that can be learned from from that decision as well but by and was transferred after the action today issuing and after that ministry to process it been completed so at the time of the action he was required to go through the administrative exhaustion period and in those circumstances  florida as a walk in correctional institute at the time of dr phil choses allegedly negligent treatment he completed his prison sentence in may two thousand and fifteen i believe and was subsequently transferred to the custody of lesser sanctions but ultimately only concludes the dismissal with prejudice is want an appropriate sanction suggests that there are other sanctions that may may or may have been or were appropriate in this these circumstances and so as a with prejudice on the statute of limitations so i would agree with your honor with regard to both of those issues i would say though that the finding and to what judge wilson and your point is is well taken comparing it to other findings the findings from other cases where this court is for st works on favorably and in the district courts favor and isn't and i think if you look at the williams v brown decision it's probably the one that i would direct the score to in that instance the district court concluded that the plaintiff had engaged in a clear and persistent pattern of deceit in court filings and which to me rises and i believe rises well beyond anything to be classified as the findings in this case and even in those circumstances and even action and while we understand that mr barbour is incarcerated and did proceed on an i p status certainly some contempt of court sanctions may have been appropriate heavy and he still declined to agree with  requests to get an address for for dr villages i don't think that's necessarily warranted but i do think that we are we're overlooking and looking for additional sanctions what we're decentralize discussing would be turning those yes no questions on the florida civil rights complaint form into essentially a strict liability true or false question if the only thing that the district court needs to show is that the pla falsely responded or incorrectly responded to those questions and it's particularly in a situation like here where we have a pro se litigant with significant vision problems that they any one of which could have caused those issues i think there was reason for further inquiry and so just immediately defaulting to because the answers were wrong he must've lied i think goes beyond what this court has previously required of this report and the circumstances