on the case of davis v andersen and some of the issues that i wanted to point out to the court apparently suggest to the court that the issues confined to bringing that in the reason we brought it in is to regional bias goes to the area that this thing took place in the state of alabama we did put some exhibits in brief showing that there was a regional bias in reference to the north versus the south it's almost as if we're continuing the civil war on the head of the at that time any type of educational assistance to the handicapped being as she was from indiana later on and research in the area we found that the court and the school had a bias in reference to individuals from northern indiana and that's where we brought in the fact of the civil war and i asked the civil war most of the slaves came to northern indiana when i came down to alabama to assist also the the plaintiffs as well as the father in the case counsel our time is short and i think you need to address the reasons the district court gave for dismissing the long and essentially in comprehensible yes every ever held that or just record lacks power to dismiss a five hundred page long rules never and we also contend that the case was clear enough for not only the court to discern what we were saying but also that what the court was really  was able to pick up many issues many facts and many statements in the in the complaint that they were able to discern and so we're saying that it's contradictory if you can't you see and you can't discern what is there and you're able to pick out fulfilled the complaint list issue list and counted and put in them the numbers on each of the complaints in each of the claims so both of those issues and both of those portions were satisfied and we're going to be served at rest about time for you but certainly mr davis morning your honour's adam c d a i represent howard i'm kind of shy i will be speaking on behalf of all the employees the notice pleading requirements of the rules are designed to streamline litigation to frame the issues fairly  to simplify court procedure going forward the flipside of that is if they're if they're not followed then litigation can become unnecessarily complicated wasting the time of the district court and making things difficult for the defense this case illustrates a circumstance where just missile is the appropriate action to take when the rules of pleading her not follow the district court was correct these are not just technical requirements five page monster after the five hundred seventy four page complaint was dismissed is neither short nor is it plain we have an eighty three page preliminary statement followed by a forty page chronology we're already at novel length before any of the claims are even articulate and that doesn't include the four hundred twenty nine pages of exhibits that were attached to the complaint as this court is held at length alone may make the complaint unintelligible because it's like quote fishing a gold coin from a bucket of mud the defendant i'm sorry the davis is here pieces which require a minimal factual basis for notice sufficient notice of the claim if that's what they were going for this is certainly a case of overkill because the factual statements are so broad and so stream of consciousness that it obscures what the actual claims are and that doesn't even get to rule ten where none of the paragraphs in the one hundred twenty five page preliminary stephen are numbered rule ten requires each paragraph to be limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances that is not the case and even where they are numbered in the claims each claim each count twelve of the sixteen counts take up a single monstrous paragraph that's more than a page long and the remaining four counts are any better i would turn the court's attention to the fredrick parties and grievances that's exactly the case here dismissal with prejudice was appropriate there dismissal with prejudice was appropriate here and in fact the violation is even more egregious because mr davis is a license attorney and is not held to the deferential standard that the pro se plaintiffs in fredrickson were and if there are no questions from your honour's i will conclude there time in the event that there was advocacy or in the event of this court has any questions on the judicial immunity component of the argument that we raise in our motion having heard no advocacy on that issue up to this time that it really wasn't fleshed out in the briefs unless the court has questions and sixteen years worth of actions and twelve different offenders and where possible is the controlled and then i would say the critical area of eight that we responded to also  in motions to dismiss most of the critique that the district court made in reference to the complaint with the based on the amendment area and all of the chronology and we would set forth and also that when we clock in reference to our responses for numerous defendants who came in late and had a kind of a dis concern in this respect for the for the district courts six defendants did not come in at all and one we feel was more culpable than the rest did not even respond and that's why and i'll brief we asked when we followed that we should be granted a default but we weren't even allowed to do that and lastly on a we had approximately on as we had approximately ten days extended to us that was not vacated when the district court dismissed the case with prejudice those ten days w