before who was diagnosed seriously mentally ill both before he was incarcerated and while he was incarcerated by this raises several issues in the brief didn't address it not to expect they would necessarily but what is what can a person who judged mentally ill do in a case where it takes some rational decision making to file a case and all sorts of broad steps within that how kind of mentally ill person handle anything so in this case we think that i'm sorry judge your question is how can the player sack somebody is to determine to be incompetent and we what we would agree three different occasions to amend his complaint so he proved to the court through multiple different times that she got a year's processes the doctor reflect to him and his complaint to the district courts liking and he was unable to do so so in this case i think thomas is a little bit different than any say plaintiff that were to come over that was incompetent or serious damage to the record reflects that he filed three various complaints and all the while he all he simultaneously requested count asking the district court to review the merits of his case and in this case the district court never did that it was supposed to sever or dismissed unrelated and then truth to go forward with  the unrelated claims or defenses but it didn't do that it time to time and time again it regurgitated facts in its orders and we can see that it parses out the claims but it never says as the p r a requires it never assessed whether is currently at last bill and mr thomas has this history of being to various prisons because of his mental illness and so he goes into solitary confinement at w c you at westville and then he was transferred out to the fact that this case is a complex one it relates to complicated medical issues and in this case mr thomas wasn't able to cure the pleading defects of his case let alone to litigate his case you know in advance to just the litigation you know and i think in this case he you know he pleaded with the judge in this case he said you know your honor i filed my st amended i filed to the judge told him and the district court told him that your case is miss joined he attempted to refile another complaint all timely simultaneously requesting counsel to assist him with the process i think he went from twenty six defendants down to ten eventually from time claims down to complete and you know throughout this process he asked the district court through status hearings for example he requested a status hearing with the district court he said you know your honor i'm worried that the statue of limitations is going to run up my my case he didn't understand my filing he had preserved his right but he had said i'm worried about the to your set of limitations that applies in indiana can you please liberally construe my complaint so that we can just move forward on merits i just want someone to tell me whether or not i have marriage where he is claims and ultimately the district for it was not did not do that here and that's what this this case comes down to we would suggest that a district court a seriously mentally ill plaintive who has attempted to file his complaint three times but has but it has been struck each time due to pleading errors that the district court in that case sever or dismissed unrelated claims to move forward on those claims that are meritorious and the district court in its rd order striking the complaint actually listed erd name dominant dominant claims it said these appear to be the dominant claims against eichmann but the district court didn't say whether or not they were cognizable it didn't conduct a merit screening a police say that the that a merit screening was conducted here but it wasn't the p r a were wires that report identify patient i guess i have is there's nobody independently looking at him who cares about so if he ever i don't know the president and discharge him even if he gets all these remedies staying hears appropriate and maybe there would be some internal adjustment about how he's treated separately that i don't know which case it was but where  someone was released and only took him ten days to committed a very serious crime and somebody said what you turn him loose and you know yes this is sort of the st patient i have with this case is just looking at it and well i think we should move to the district court is required to move forward on the merits and then the district court was required in this case to sever or to dismiss unrelated claims as mandated by the p r a it did not do that but ultimately for here the result for thomas here would be i think that the jailhouse letter and last call control you know would have to accommodate his serious mental illness before he go back there right he should be in a unit that can assess particularly with his serious mental illness i'd like to reserve the minute that i think i have learned will give you some more time with others i have several quest litum i mean there's a problem with that with a we don't just take people who come in as as plaintiffs in a case if they were determined to be mentally ill right that's if we would have welcomed a guardian litum in this case and i mean ultimately if that wasn't sought and so i think that the next best thing would have been the appointment of counsel i don't think that the district court was right in knowing that mr thomas in his in his orders or in his complaints stated that a jail house attorney had helped him write those but we would argue that the district court could have been more sympathetic it should have been more sympathetic it should have severed or dismissed his claim as this court has stated multiple times when you're faced with the with the complaint that has been issued join your problems the district court is supposed to although it's not ideal for the district court to have to do this it should just miss the claims that are not supposed to be in that complaint and move forward on the ones that are meritorious otherwise you end up in a situation like you did with thomas his case has now not been heard on the merits it hasn't moved forward and it was dismissed for failure to before if he's mentally incompetent which he's been determined to be surely mentally ill how can he do anything your honor he was the state doesn't deny that he is seriously mentally ill but the court around and i'm using district court docket numbers district court docket number twenty one if you want to show cause that they grant him this extension but there's been no contact from the  court document twenty two dismisses the case and i can twenty three judge is the judgment so the district court is giving him some time to respond because the case has been dormant right i believe the district court statistically close the case determine the complexity of the case the court considered that we were just in the pleading stages and so that all thomas seemed to do was follow its instructions and file his amended complaint in the court felt that thomas was  to do so because as i said earlier because it he had a logical thought process he was consistently diagnosed with average intellect and intact memory and he filed memorized healthcare requests in appeals and grievances in the past and case ultimately as you just stated it comes down to whether or not the district court abused its discretion for failure to prosecute and we would argue that on the face of the order itself which we did on previous shows that the district court refused  required to cite to a record of delay cogitations conduct or that lesser stations proved unavailable and in this case the district court did not do that and his order again he cited to one dad or to one m