of prisoner civil rights case mr branch describes what happens to snitches in prison after submitting a declaration to the warden and other complaints mr branch believes he was retaliated against when defendants threatened him transferred him will officials called him a snitch in other disparaging names failed to intervene when he was brutally beaten and sabotaged his personal legal property his claims were adequately pleaded but on remand district judge improperly dismissed them and denied mr motions mr branch's motion to revoke will we pulled us from two places your honor st is a footnote where the previous panel flagged the issue that the statutory scheme seems to contemplate contemporaneous consent as opposed to this piecemeal seven year is the previous panel did not consider the merits they explicitly noted in footnote four that they were nd in that footnote they did not say that the argument was either waived or forfeited on this is something panels do all the time but that panel did not and  this panel part from that apart from the footnote that you're talking about the previous panel when i asked where is it written that this that that simultaneous consent is required is there any other place i should be  looking that's that's a primary place your honor the rest of our arguments are pulled from the statute and from the legislative history both of which talk about the consent of the parties in the decision of the parties which seem to be very intentional use that there is there is either one decision or one consent and not not piecemeal that can occur over over the period of seven years on a long as two law well that's a good question your honor and there's a couple ways of looking at this the narrow way to decide would be seven years is is to point they need to file new consent forms and the reason for that would be twofold number one in the district court at that time or the district judge wouldn't know which parties have consented not consented so as a practical matter they would have to send these consent forms to all the new part to all the parties and number two the the rules in the statute discuss the the the warning that the parties are free to withhold their consent in there would only be able to withhold consent if they haven't already provided it so we think that would be a narrower way to look at it and if the panel wanted to go one step further can look at contract law for analogy the what when would an offer expire if you mr branches smiting his is consent form is an offer and the are valid indefinitely until they're either ribault or accepted so i'm not sure you can just import contract law because contract law i don't think necessarily clearly establishes what you're suggesting be a pretty consistent practice the one of the the i don't know i'm not much i was called initially but one of the things that concerned me as i read your briefing on this is that every district in the united states probably addresses these consent issues with slightly different procedures and forms now the form you cited is an administrative office form a think was created in one thousand nine hundred and eighty seven you cited the district of arizona's website but there are two forms on the judge i don't know what the the the district in california is a central jester going to show what their their processes but that doesn't seem to provide any reason basis for us to decide timing so for example if a case goes to  you know i mean work is not a word that we typically pluralized like consent doesn't mean that your work is joint yes trying to do focus on the text of the statute but we refocus on the word consent and decision those are both singular and so it's not specifically alleged and it's our position that that the court should have reasonably infer that they were retaliating based on the fact that they they didn't intervene if the fact of what let them not intervening when mr branch branch for for submitting the decoration that had actually said you know you'll be dealt with for submitting decoration and so on but is there any indication that they heard open our say that you'll be dealt with i mean out of that and not in the complaint your honor all right but it but mr branch only needs to wage a plausible explanation even if there are other possible explanations out there you know from the th circuit says that is sufficient for him to go on weeks amid statements from prison officials calling him a snitch and other disparaging names to expose them to a substantial risk of serious bodily harm and in fact mr branch was harmed after his last transfer to building two hundred and fifty where he was brutally beaten by inmates all defendants matter and it would like to reset that and get another opportunity to take its claims to trial it raises three issues none of which warrant such a an extreme result as unsettling an otherwise fall and bear jury trial  that issue for any subsequent appeal in the same action we cited those cases on page twenty four dollars of our brief the failure to raise this issue when it was available and it was available results and waiver ranch knew about rely on the the several orders from the national judges that had been assigned the case of the time but he didn't allow this fresh opportunity to a men well your honor i think that what the magistrate judge did i'm sorry but the district court did in this case provided branch with the process that he was do under those circumstances the district where his decision did in those prior magistrate judge  of them are inconsistent with each other how do we get past that wire and i think that the is this court in other cases has endorsed the process where it invalidated or determined that a magistrate judge issued an order without a direction treating on remand as a recommendation rather than as an order and right right absolutely but the problem is that a blanket adoption is difficult in this case because there are some inconsistencies so what do we do with that that's what right up to this are and of the to all of us and i'm not answering more directly the we don't i don't believe that the district judge did adopt those analyses the district judge did look specifically to the facts that were alleged and