focus on the question whether there is any federal right to be the beneficiary of a criminal investigation of somebody else the supreme court has held multiple times that there is no constitutional right to the enforcement of the law and it said that both as a matter of standing in cases like linda r s against richard d and as a matter of substance in cases like to shany against castle rock it appears to me that your theory is that your client suffered because there was an inadequate public investigation and if there is no right to any criminal investigation solely as the destruction of evidence the next question in line is why isn't that an issue to be litigated in state court eleven different way of understanding the nature of the claim here is that it amounts to a federal issue removal of a potential discovery dispute in the state litigation you you will lead to what could be called one to be handled in discovery it's not a reason for litigating an independent claim in a different legal system why is this case any different from that norm i think it's agreed that the court house doors were not closed but that the plaintiff believes that he had trouble accumulating evidence that it might have been destroyed the question i'm asking is why that isn't a dispute should be handled in discovery in the state litigation i'm not happy with the concept that every time there is a potential discovery dispute in a case with state actors as defendants the federal courts will in taint entertain separate litigation under the heading of access to the courts to resolve the discovery  in this case approaches the level of misconduct and ongoing efforts to conceal the circumstances of the death that parallels its course the circumstances of this court's decision in bell against city  afton every state law procedural into into a federal plan instead it simply took knowledge that the federal civil rights statutes were ena beneficiary are the individuals who should benefit from a long till death act even if this court were uncomfortable with expecting logan standing as a beneficiary or signing for any deceiving why isn't that a capacity issue governed by federal rule of civil procedure seventeen and therefore a federal issue not a state issue your honor i claim and in that regard only the personal representative can bring it within two years and if not a matter of being are switching out of an individual and changing titles for example no matter where someone starts mitigating a lawsuit and that party passes away ending the need to name another person does that answer your question that i'm not sure so are you saying that the state that the court could never assign a wrongful death action to someone to pursue outside of the personal representative of the state yes judge whatever interest vs state of kerry astley had in the federal lawsuit to court assign such interest to logan plea that's very broad how do you take away your reading  i believe it looking just to that sentence we need to look at the entire order itself because the next sentence after that clarify by explaining that mr alvey was to be to receive the you were reading that nd sentence meant to limit the st that's correct judge me on and also it should be it shouldn't be forgotten that in that same order the court actually denied plaintiff's request to become appointed personal representative and also a request to become the special administrators and so opted only to give him that interest in the procedure be abandoned property can you educate us this idea of the probate court in indiana determination with regard to whether this was a suicide or homicide it seems this whether or not that's a conclusive presumption is going to be at least factually it's been in dispute we do have some court they therefore indicated a contact and therefore it was suicide as well as making to the reasonable degree of medical certainty a conclusion that it was not a homicide separately in yes just to speak a little bit to the argument regarding whether a beneficiary under indiana law has standing to sue for a denial of access on behalf of an estate the probate code is clear on that bring such actions and those decisions must be determined in the state probate court and in this instance if there is a beneficiary that can yield a cause of action is not being pursued on behalf of the estate they had every right under the probate code to go in and intervene in those proceedings and have been present their case their to the probate judge as part of what the probate courts do here in indiana to have either have a personal representative or have a special administrator appointed and in this case that happened and the probate court declined pointed to a quest to become the personal representative and also to have a special administrators appointed for the purpose of bringing in causes of action on behalf of the state of the father so to the extent that i think that saying that you personally had no access to the courts you had ample assets in the courts below if there are no further questions from the court i will conclude by stating simply that the district court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs lacked article free standing to pursue ring of the coin litigation there's no coherent reading of that assignment in that order that limits it in any way that would limit it in any way to merely a residual interest in the proceeds litigation for several reasons the st of all the language itself is on its face but sweeping but the context is revealing as well logan thought the distribution of that property from the