an open reduction surgery and th i was responsible for over and injuries was both filed a timely rule thirty nine what's wrong with the judge's ruling right there then even if you find that there there isn't a mandatory policy for some reason you want to look for something else well in this case look the second step is of this two step process is the sherman if the discretion that was exercise piece in the ninth circuit of failure to maintain real property in the safe condition because of budgetary concerns is not something with ever been accepted as being something that is protected by discretionary function immunity  very similar to these other failure to maintain maintain the federal government undertook this responsibility to be her landlord and to provide a safe premises a safe housing for these people that are military spouses children military  f members of the military and under the circumstances this piece it's very clear that the government the army was negligent because what they did was is they didn't keep the common areas of the delegation but they may be a discretionary duty we never get to this case we vacate remanded dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if it involved discretionary duty but under the ninth circuit authority discretionary duty does not involve budgetary decisions such reconsider them on the rule for fifty nine motion because he believed it should be dismissed under the circumstances he's shown that he's going to have a hard time putting that out of his mind that evidence that he relied on in the slightest in the cage and it doesn't indicate that if we were to if we were just i believe that in this case there's an impression that's been created by judge advice line you know specifically adopting that the defendant's rationale and their opposition to the rule fifty nine motion that he's basically identifying himself with the defendant mr leeson as you know urge to the extent that he found apparent that of coal in the snow removal policy to be a specific and it was a mandate to clear all snow prior to or by the end of programs cleared once per year in late february or march closed pretty clear right well no your honor actually there are multiple things that make that first of all we don't believe that's clear in itself if there's multiple other aspects of the policy that make it clear that that's not  change in emergency situations do you heavy snowfall and finally the policy goes on the state that quote areas in which vehicles have not been removed will be bypassed and moved to the bottom of the list with it but it lists dates and the various housing units that were going to be filed and it goes all the way through april one and if that that reflects on only that the army was interpreted in its reg to it so rough to require the removal of snow by a date certain and that needs to be read also in context with the policy and in fact the contract that the tenant signed to take responsibility to conduct their own snow abatement throughout the winter that's part and parcel with the whole policy of simply allowing plowing at the very end of the winner for purposes of cleanup and that cleanup is provided simply because it's  difficult to use that is the break up of the ice renders the law to no longer relatively even it is difficult to navigate for vehicles so the whole purpose of the cleanup is at the ends when the melting occurs to such an extent talking we're talking jurisdiction at the outset and that's a little bit i'm concerned that that this is i don't really see much difference between what's going on here and what happened in summers and the other yet other case i'd like to address both of your concern  consideration which is balanced depending on what the political regulations and policies context is in that case so in this case what we have is the military which has a whole host of competing policy demands and and limited manpower to to resolve them including the functions of the military base including the decision for instance to provide base housing units to provide base housing on what term when it wasn't there were on march ninth and in the army tried the plow the lot on march ninth but because the fuck the cars were there it got moved to the end of the list and there's a list indicates back on your one twenty two that would have put it into well there isn't any exception for the more that the february march timeframe to have that snow removed in the snow removal policy the provision that talks about the avoiding putting a lock to the end of the list applies to all the l policy that says that can be extended