versus mark johnson who st year from his culpable state of mind this coptic i ask you is that the full scope of the appeal as you see it in other words there were i don't know how many other defendants but there were multiple other defend and there was a ruling on s judgment as to those defendants that was adverse to your client right curfew ok none of that is before us correct correct so you're not arguing that there was an error in the deliberate indifference conclusion as to defendant  b your were only focused on this whole mess of confusion about the slingers and all that that is correct your honor but you're only focusing on this linger and whether she can still as  to liberally in deference on the record that was before the court given the court's finding that nobody else was your honor i believe that that is an determination that the district court has to make however likely or in or on likely it is that that happens it's still right that mr roberts is entitle to under the deliberate a different standard served on her a state representative a served she's allowed to come in and then the court addresses the summary judgment motions that were pending and analyzes her deliberate in deference to the claim against delivery is that how you foresee the case going forward just your honor and and then the district court will have done its job in terms of looking to see whether there was an issue of fact so where do we draw the line when the question comes down to it looks like everybody dropped the ball here to some extent where does the fault lie i believe your honor that before it lies in terms of the smallest granule even if you take into consideration that the memorandum of understanding between the wisconsin d o j and the court was solely in the interest but about here though where it doesn't look like they couldn't find her it looks like they thought she was the same person as someone else and i believe your honor that that is something that on the face of enter roberts complaint you could see that he references two separate nurses nurse tag and nurse linger could can during separate actions and although he  confuses as to what nurse was doing what in his motion for summary judgment he never confuses that nurse as the one and the same so why wasn't your client put on notice that he needed to speak up and say something with the acceptance of service that was filed at document twelve of the district court where it names the individuals that they served in indicates except service and york it's pacifically says same as an tab and anslinger that was filed on the back at your client would have received it because he was pro se so his address was there why didn't that put him on notice that oh there are two people here and they think it's one person i need to speak up and ask that miss slinger be so your honor i believe that been made aware that something was wrong that may that certainly was not enough to trigger any sort of awareness from him because when he later responded to wisconsin district attorney's actions based his main argument was that mary slinger was still a party to this action and their arguments therefore as to her not being a defendant were not enough to to survive which the district court held otherwise but that shows that he wasn't made aware and that shows he didn't meet may not have understood it tell later but i know he's pro se and we view pro se pleadings liberally but we do still expect them to comply with the rules so why wouldn't this acceptance of service and let me throw in there the defendant's answer an affirmative defenses that again specifically identify and york as formally tab or slinger and they don't list mary sling separately why wouldn't that be enough to put mr roberts on some type of notice your honor it would be should have been enough to put him on some type of  more to the point it should have also put the horror on to some to the court being familiar with these types of claims with its own screening order but are you saying the court has the burden of for every case that it has  should not be permitted should be affirmed for two primary reasons forfeiture and lots of good cause as to forfeiture the point of did not raise the issues that are being made or spoken despite multiple opportunities to do so the timeline was gone through that's the but in by far the best but do you mean that's not what he meant but he meant to sue someone else if there was another person involved he was intending that this that this complaint be directed at did wasn't there a documentary that showed that service had been stated that the defendant had accepted service yet this is outside of the record i think that board only incarcerated plaintiffs do not have access to the to the to the docket to the electronic docket i wouldn't think that he would have seen that but even if he had i think that if there's any tension between the very plain and to express representation by the defendants by the department of justice of who they were accepting service on trumps what was put in a documentary which is not made by a party or by the court or any other going to resign asking the broader the broader concern that i have with this mr murphy is just that this it seems if you sat down to come up with a law school hypothetical to confuse people as much as possible about who is served  who wasn't served in the mix last names this case would be a prime candidate for the best hypothetically come up with i think you may be right next think that addressing that sort of practical point i think the practical resolution here is who knew who the sue so in a the st time the name mary slinger appears anywhere is in the defendant's motion for summary judgment oh right right doesn't that isn't that some indication he wanted to litigate against somebody he believed was a real person named mary slater i'm sorry the defendant as a non defendant and that was after the service deadline it was not a request of any sort and i don't think it and i don't think it is anything that resolves the the rule for burden for the plaintiffs to serve harveys who they want to serve but the plaintiffs on summary judgment motion and york was nursling er and i think that that is that is mary's daughter that's correct and is mary's daughter and and and so i mean i think it's important that it does not see and i think one made maybe twenty eight way to look at the case is to say under rule for who is obligation is it to not be confused and is the plaintiff is the plaintiffs who needs to know who the plaintiff wants to sue now the defendants and not the court another important thing here is that there's no potential in the plaintiff in this complaint make it clear who we want to know that very much not but based on the district court screening order it seems that the district court was able to distill it down as to in that real person mary slinger provided medical care to the plaintiff yes on the issues that are pertinent to the allegations and point yes ok so why would we not a suit not assume that the plaintiff wanted to sue i think it i think it would be i think it would be incorrect to make that to police that burden on the defendants particularly at the point where they are st gathering information about a case and reason and getting ready to answer these commit you know more than beyond the memorandum of understanding requirements and made the entirely reasonable to duction oh i bet this person means to sue and york his former name was taboo was in fact nursling or interviewed him at the time i don't doubt that i think it was an honest mistake and you can certainly understand why you have it and slinger in a merry slinger and anslinger has different names at different times still around but i don't think any if there's anything in the record that would support that the defendants intentionally were trying to hide mary slinger but the question comes down to ok there was an honest mistake the district court had directed that both an tab and  nursling or and i think that i think the difference is very important because and york was nursling are truly literally was nursling are but i'm but maybe to get more of the corner point if there's if there's legitimate confusion on behalf of the defendants or group of friends over who is going to be sued whose responsibility is it under pleading standards and rule for everything to know who needs to be soonish the plaintiff's responsibility not the defendant that in my ten seconds i'll just say that defendant risa to sentence is together i believe should be read separately where it says at minus replies to courtney a point it was marshall a deputy marshal or person specifically pointed by the court the court must order if the the cases but does doesn't that follow up on if the plaintiff request isn't that a contrast to the court may order i believe that that if plaintiff's requests the court for me a point