four ways first an insufficient nexus exists between the misconduct found by the district court and the allegation central to mr padi's complaint second at no point in time the did the district court explicitly consider lesser alternative sanctions and discuss why those lesser sanctions would have been inappropriate third mr peabody's actions did not cause the type of prejudice that warrants the extreme and  disfavored remedy of dismissal and finally the district court erred by applying an objective standard to the willful deceit and extraordinary circumstances factors rather than a subject of bad faith standard collectively these numerous errors demonstrate that the district court exceeded the limits of its discretion and that this court should reverse the dismissal sanction turning to the nexus factor which this court has previously said until a co is the most critical criteria on this is a due process consideration and therefore nexus must exist between the misconduct found by district court and the underlying elements of a plaintiff's complaint so what is the asking for in this case lissa whole host of of medical issues and then basically says and there are more later on in pleadings that relate to the typewriter he says corazon caused this problem the medical condition that caused my blindness do we know for sure whether or not he's actually asking for damages or seeking relief on as a result of his alleged vision problems he has never sought any sort of damages related directly to his vision it is true that he says his vision stems from some of the elements alleged in his complaint such as neuropathy and high blood pressure but ultimately what he's really asking for is adequate provision of medical care he does ask for a blanket sum of money in his complaint and then it's difficult for me to say no he's not asking for any damages based on his vision when he says elsewhere  c in corazon created my medical condition they are not looking at all medical reasons that have caused my blindness and theirs and he says there's something wrong with my vision on a story after my blood pressure was not checked and i was provided meds for pain that didn't work so  something that's sort of a separate issue arising from that but ultimately he is seeking better treatment of his medical care and everything related to his vision was detailed your honor so for example there are certain medication that's been diagnosed that he should be taking but the medical providers at karate isn't are not allowing him to take them at appropriate times they're splitting his pills apart and so it does get rather various religious restrictions on his ability to eat and eat and so on and in hell aiko old family the standard that this course previously set forth previously is that a nexus exists only if it interferes with  rightful decision of the case and what the district court did here and what defendants have advocated is to cloak all of this under this shield of medical issues or medical problems and that mr padi's misconduct related to medical issues so too does complaint and therefore nexus exists but we're really in a gray area here where the it's not there must be a much more direct connection between the misconduct and the allegations in the complaint so into lake o it wasn't enough just to say there were environmental issues what the ninth circuit previously said was the misconduct related to hazardous waste elements in a doctored report that the e p a had submitted and that was not a close enough nexus to the actual merits of the counterclaim which related to whether or not particular property at issue were wetlands and so similarly here in the you can't just continue to take all these jumps to say well first he's alleging medical issues then those medical issues have led to his vision then he had misconduct of the district court found about his vision there's a number of steps that both the district court of the defendants would have to take in order to find nexus and never before has this court made such a  chain link connection there's always been a much more direct bridge between the underlying merits of a complaint and the misconduct before the court not only are m parties vision claims with which the district court found to be his misconduct not only are those sort of a different substantive issue but really we're talking about procedural issues versus a substantive tripodi attempted to at best again it received real advantage instead of having to handwrite every single thing that he would file before the district court he wanted access to a voice activated typewriter his underlying complaint is completely different and it's about the adequate provision of of medical care as i've previously stated and so if you have filed a lawsuit saying that cries an improperly took his previous typewriter away that would be something that would create an sanction but that's not the only error that the district court committed the district court also failed to discuss lesser alternative sanctions and what would you think those would have been i mean in normal case you'd look at monetary fines but that's not available really against  of prison i think the most appropriate alternative sanction here would be some sort of adverse inference instruction and that's something that courts have to have an adverse inference instruction so if and when the case were to proceed before a fact finder the judge could say i made a previous finding about mr trapeze credibility i found him to be not credible in a filing that he presented to the court and so that would be something directing a verdict but what i will do and what i can do is explain here the procedures that the prison needed to follow in order to maintain the record relation but i just i don't think i've seen a case in  consider in a footnote in malone and again this is a less ideal of a perhaps of a lesser sanction one possible remedy offered by this court was that a case could be put to the bottom of the docket so that that would be a way to effectively penalize mr p and pressing his case is that it would sort of get a bit of a d prioritise status so that's another example of a lesser alternative sanction that the court could have considered of course while monetary sanctions here are probably not the most appropriate remedy that again is something that the court could have and frankly should have considered and perhaps rejected it but here you have simply a conclusory single line stat statement where the court said i conclude that nothing is going to be a better  sanctions element which in lieu hon this court has said can be a fatal flaw in the issuance of a dismissal but the prejudice that the court found here which was simply just litigation expenses delay frankly some of which was caused by defending themselves these are is not enough for prejudice alternately prejudice is where you're really hindering the ability to to bring forth your case and finally on the prejudice of the court here really relied on the objective medical evidence which is not something we're disputing here but did not did below the surface and say what was the subjective intent that mr poddy had and this court has previously said that looking at subject about faith and other elements when ordering and actually one of the cases she cites answers things in our favor and the case is in race to and you'll see in footnote six of in re sue the court specifically stated that you don't have to rely on the appellant to the in this case inmate admitting fault if the objective evidence shows that to be the case then that's that's proven and so we can't simply say because i subjectively will not agree that i lied to the court doesn't mean that the court can't determine that he lied and in this case the court made that determination the court looked at the objective evidence which included three different i and an m r i and looked at the documents that he had submitted which the court which the doctor dr rips and said you can't fill those out the way he filled them out if you're blind because he stayed in the lines he filled in the boxes so all of the objective evidence showed that he was lying about this and just to minimize it but to say well that's just it's just all about getting a typewriter completely misses the point the point is he was lying about his medical condition the court concluded that i thought how can i possibly do anything less than this sanction because and what's evident from from what transpired is his medical condition t litigation even if it's if it relates to the eyes or relates to his back relates to renal failure or whatever he's claiming pain and suffering primarily an inability to walk are all based upon his subjective symptoms his there are there his subjective symptoms are a component of that so when the court concludes that he's gone to this elaborate scheme about lying about not being able to see by submitting scrawled documents and by claiming i can't see and when that's completely proven to be wrong then how can the court say we can accept anything this man says in the rest of this litigation and so that's what that's worth this is all about now the curious thing to me is unfortunately the way the briefing was done  it's almost as if the court was being asked to decide this case in one thousand nine hundred five because the briefing never addressed valley engineers the briefs submitted by mr padi's counsel says if he if the court fails to explicitly address each of the four components then the court can reverse on any one of those and valley engineer says otherwise valley engineer says we don't mean them to be mechanical applications these are guidelines for the court and valley engineers has gone on to be cited both by a member of this panel in i have trouble pronouncing it the that these were not conditions proceed to a dismissal that they are matters for the for the trial court to consider at this trial court said and laid out in his opinion that he didn't fact consider them the interesting thing about p p a is that it was goes on to talk about what is prejudice and indicates that costs of litigation are present can't be the prejudice that's required to support t dismissal so in addition i would say about valley engineers this and that is that it's been cited over five hundred times by subsequent courts this court many times but many more times by the district level throughout the throughout the ninth circuit so we submit that had to that the premise or the construct of plaintiff's appeal  e for sure i tend to agree with you that there may not be fatal is that they don't if the disregard doesn't really expressly consider all of them but the factors are all there absolutely absolutely when we talk about those ok i will and  and the court has repeatedly expressed the preference that the district courts elucidate those factors right yeah i mean that's that makes an appellate record from which we could i mean from this record do we know for sure that alternative lesser sanctions were considered now i mean the court said that no lesser sanction is appropriate right and yes if you don't have an explicit but you can look to the record yourself what alternative sanctions there isn't any i mean  the only sanction i could come up with would be to tell the jury that mr body cannot be believed on any time he expresses a subjective symptoms but that's case dispositive and so there really isn't any other to allow even though it may be directly germane to the medical condition assuming it's litigated testimony that he submitted evidence that he some benefits just well i mean that's a that's a potential sanction that is a potential sanction but it isn't the question here whether it's entirely collateral yes and counsel does not cite it to us a single case that defines this being collateral collateral to the main issues of the case we think it's essential to the main issues the case that's what judge burry found he said that this is about the medical condition which is the core of the complaint and so he made that made that finding and then it was you because well because it doesn't go far enough because it isn't simply that he just lied about it it is that he concoct he kept doing this repeatedly and to you're allowed to look at it and then to the challenge for you is to say do you have a firm and definite conviction that judge perry exceeded acceptable sanctions in issuing this order that's the clara convince you that that's the abuse of discretion standard and i submit to you that they have not shown that and judge thomas this question to the appellate is a perfectly appropriate one what is the appropriate sanction and is there such a sanction this ever been shown up in the cases i have found one but that's the issue so let me let me address the prejudices here and if that's an issue for the court and that is this is as it appears in sierra pacific u s versus sierra pacific the prejudice of a fraud on the court is not simply to the litigant it's to the court and in this case that's what you have then malone talks about that and i said bush talks about that that there's no hope left after somebody has done something this wrong this calculated there's no assurance that in the rest of the proceeding the court is going to get to the truth because you have a litigant who's the court has determined gone out of his way to perpetrate this fraud and it really is if you think about fraud on the court what greater for a fraud on the court could there be then to say i blind you know it seems to me it's different than most of the cases most of the cases are a doctor to document they change the document did this that that but in this case you have somebody i think you  this is this is what the court was facing is here's this issue about the typewriter and what does this tell you about this litigant you know people in court one sided frequently lyin and i don't want to send cynical about the legal process litigation for forty years i'll tell you how this comes up in person is really the geishas and that is if a plaintiff has a prior treatment that they failed to disclose that often results in a dismissal of the whole case even  let's say they're claiming back injuries and head injuries in the present case and there was a prior head injury that was not disclosed when the court hears that the whole case gets dismissed not just ok we're just not going to let you proceed with a head injury and so yeah i think that's what's happening here is on the jurisdiction i would say on that it may or issue it may but it but the curious thing about this case is that we have independent of all as we have all these initiatives to try to get prisoners to be able to produce a legible pleadings so that we can as a chord deal with them and this case is all about saying you can afford somebody from producing legible documents and if you tries to miss gage misrepresentation so we can submit logical documents to the court then and somehow we should dismiss the case that on one hand in the other case and i will say that there's a lot of medical expense trying to prove  to be a liar and not much in the record about what they did to do with his real problems well the problem is there was no real problem you know the the finding of the court which really is uncontested except if you accept the will for the subjective thing is he was faking it you know and the courts put through a year and a half of litigation there's two over two hundred document entries on this case but through all of that you know on what is clearly fraud on the court and so if somebody does that are they allowed to keep going that's the question and you can say always just about the typewriter well it's not because it's a bum it's what he did it's not what was the object of that evidence that same behavior and the when faced with that behavior the court has the authority to do what he did i really think what it what it comes down to is is the seriousness of the offense the seriousness of the what was trying to he trying to accomplish by that but if he will go to those lengths and required three different doctors and an m r i and still say i can't see even though the court has found otherwise i submit to you that the seriousness without a defense takes away beyond most other cases and i think that's what it constitutes the just ordinary circumstance here and justifies what be having an extreme sanction here because it's not going to the merits of the case but also we should be issuing not only monetary sanctions but an adverse inference instruction as well and that record citation is two thousand and thirteen westlaw one two about that the prejudice element and the nexus element which at times tend to overlap because the standard here is not just how bad or how willful or potentially deceptive was a particular party but whether that deceit actually threatens to interfere with the merits of the case and so in sierra pacific which defendants cited in their twenty and as acknowledged by defendants that not every single type of threaten to undermine the workings of the adversary process itself and we can look to focus on a which was a dismissal sanction case and posts and again there was an emphasis on even though there was willful deceit found by the district court reluctantly the ninth circuit said just because there's willful deceit does not mean that there is fraud on the court under the standard set forth in the lake o and all of the other cases that describe the various elements that must be presented here you know taking the the multi factor test as a whole where you have issues with the nexus element where you have the fact that there was no explicit consideration of lesser sanctions where you have the fact that you know it's possible that the district court perhaps could have