denial of his motion which sought permission to file a motion for reconsideration of the motion for reconsider the motion that he sought to challenge an order vacating and dismissing a consent decree which at this point in time is thirty three years old just so i don't understand how the point of how the court a motion for reconsideration and have it heard by the court well first of all your honor there was a class of certification the class was certified  the court said if you give me a new representative plaintiffs you can have a class but as far as i can tell that never happened and if no representatives came forward how could it have become a class action my understanding is that you are correct but the point is that the in the order of the district court judge pointed out the fact that it was  e class was not certified and in fact it was due to go back to your question well if it was can do if it was certified conditioned upon naming a new representative and that condition was never fulfilled then it never would have become a class action that is correct or ok so if it was not a class action your client was not a party to the consent decree because there was no class to be a member of and he was not a new party so how can if that is correct how can it an outsider even if interested in the outcome in some way come the end nonparty come into the district court and say i'd like you to reconsider your ruling in a case to which i'm not a party honor the he is a third party beneficiary to the consent decree this court held that back in one thousand nine hundred five or some some at some point and the issue of course is th think he could have moved to intervene but he in a timely way and it's a number of other people do they were a lot of motions to intervene at various times by other people that were way back when but  party beneficiary who does not intervene in a timely way i don't understand how they can come in and ask to reconsider or revisit and what are their record below contains nothing about whether he has whether his motion was timely or not it was not raised by law the judge did not consider it there just him playing no record of why it took him that time your client is after my client has after an opportunity to argue that the consent decree should be maintained that the order which vacated and dismissed the said consent decree was a or he simply is looking for a chance to argue that the consent decree should followed and as a third party beneficiary to the consent decree he has the he has the ability to come before the court and challenge that how does that work to understand that during the time in the in the complaint for that that was negotiated between the counsel for the prisoners and the counsel for the arizona department of corrections the department of receive three twenty five pound packages during a defined holiday period which i believe ran from december the first to december sometime in december they could receive removed it was changed because of the difficulty that the department of corrections had in inspecting all of these big packages coming you know it was changed so that the prisoners would have one hundred dollars extra i believe is a week or a month to buy products and the prison store and the agreement was that the prison would stock sufficient number of holiday type items and specialty items so that the prisoners could buy those during during the same holiday period and that that provision remain consent decree then the packages it and includes constitutional issues such as what type of erotica the prisoners can receive what type of mail they can see and to whom what kind type of mail they may receive a consent decree that had been agreed upon and litigated vigorously during the one nine hundred ninety s in fact during the one nine hundred ninety s the case came before this court at least four times and that only one remained incarcerated and he was served he did not respond so the court determined that he and the prisoners had in fact consented to the vacating  the consent decree and the fact is that there were two hundred sixty five other plaintiffs none of whom received notice an opportunity to be heard so the order was based upon please the court my name is daniel pease jack i'm an assistant arizona attorney general here on behalf of the state of arizona i'd like to address judge schroeder's question as to what it is that partner really wants today is the first the consent decree be reinstated and to ensure that all a t o c prisoners regardless of status are entitled to the full one hundred twelve dollars limit for four weeks during the holiday period and to require the eighty's to the department of corrections to make good faith efforts to acquire especially items in the spirit of the original consent decree he has never once and caused some of the some of the problems that we have here the the most salient feature about this appeal is that at about mr faulkner's attempts to his motion and this this before us procedural if we find that either the district court like tourist action or bend it properly denied his motion that's the end of it on one side and if we find that the district court should have considered it still go back to the district court for it to look at than as to the second question i respectfully disagree your honor mr faulkner's motion in one sentence asked for permission to file a brief but the aren't we limited to the way it's framed on p r it was certainly was framed that way in his original brief and your honor can certainly affirm for reasons that appear in the record that the support that the district court's decision the district court  in granting our motion not not only took note of the fact that the one remaining plaintiffs had not responded but also said that we had established a good cause under the p l r a to have the  then in denying mr fockers motion noted that that was what he had done previously so that certainly is an issue that is before the court and it does it does tell on what is appearing here  correct and that was the other article that was one of the other arguments we made which is that that he was a third party beneficiary but he had never appeared he had never moved to enforce anything counsel says that that they weren't complete the department corrections wasn't all about the arguments he wants to make clear that he's already made the arguments that he wants to make if you look at his motion to intervene he has argued on the merits that the that the court erred in setting aside the consent decree because it didn't take into so and the whole business about whether anybody got notice is really a red herring and just a bunch of smoke he has never argued that he personally was entitled past even if he was he evidently got wind of it he filed his motion he wasn't tossed out of court because he was late he was heard so he got the processed he got the process that he was d