impression across the country we have a case here in which a prisoner has brought in eighty a claim to a federal court and that claim has been dismissed on the basis that he did not name the individual defendants in his initial gr you well i guess in addressing that on your argument as to the general damages in that the punitive damages it seems to me that punitive damages require a level of contact that generally that's different than the general remedies mr butler may be entitled to is something that can and should be addressed by the trial court if this court reverses the trial court's dismissal well in some part of exhaustion the purpose is to put people on notice of what they have to defend against in litigation reform act the actual purpose is to put the prison system on notice of problems within the system there is nothing about the prison litigation reform act that is designed to address specific individual the relevant whether a prisoner asked for a specific remedy in the administrative process the issue is whether or not he outlined what he's complaining to and that's how you start the process remedies are a completely separate issue so here i mean there's no doubt that he went through all of the law that's everyone sides agree on that correct so it's just naming the individuals yes your honor did did when he was going to the levels did he have anyone named no your honor he's claim at all levels was that he was being deprived of his rights and the americans with disabilities act that he could not perform his every day functions he did mention cost the staff and health care staff but he did not mean any specific individual which i think is appropriate in this in absolutely they have to identify those individuals or at least state in their complaint other prison guards watched and did nothing this is not that case that's a different activity i mean watching and doing nothing as opposed to beating someone right  but the distinction here is that the prisoner is aware that there are others watching and not intervening and in most of the cases that have been cited to this court the reason the prisoners claims thing for lack of naming specific defendants is because the prisoner either but the facts of this case indicate that mr butler did not know and still does not know whether or not the individuals he's named are the ones who are ultimately responsible or somebody else well it's any of the fact that he doesn't know inherent to  i think that's part of it your honor i think that i think that the standard could be the same for every prisoner but one of the factual details that you could look at is that mr butler does not have resources that access to the same resources because he simply can't read policy isn't that really distinguishable from this case in the sense that obviously you know using excessive force on an inmate is one thing the person that actually does that and the and the person basically stad all know the way that we're going to comply you know the way that we're going to accommodate your disability is call us when you need something and we'll have staff come and deal with it and he said but the  and they don't have time to get out i need an inmate assistance that was the original request means inmate appeal correct and then that in mail appeal went through the four stages of the review and these four defendants were the ones who were involved in that review later form the basis of the suit and for many types of problems this will often require as a practical matter that the prisoner's agreements identify individuals who are connected with the problem i believe the fifth circuit case is in confirm any of what we are asking this think the third circuit identify that johnson and said that under some circumstances that that's generally going to require that you name names this is not one of the circumstances i think that mr  to you when you initiate your complaint what about what counsel for the defendant stated in terms that the things about pauline there were other things that i think are are in the second amended further detail including about the railings because one of the reasons he was appeals which in mine was because they said that the railings help him get around and in fact mr butler responded that the railings let him into walls and caused him to break his  obviously obviously the argument for the court thank you this matter will be submitted at this point