temporarily moved to the jails hospital and decision was made that he should be referred out the stroger hospital because the jail couldn't care for again pursuant to the sheriff's policy his hand and his leg were restrained to his hospital bed and he was right so he's essentially getting bed sores or you want to when he was at work hospital he was a step back from him and he was basically in a nursing home after his accident two thousand and twelve you know when he was at the work hospital he was being treated for pressure sores because he really has limited movement of his body and during that whole course of time about four or five weeks without structure he was continuously being cared for these pressure wounds and there's medical records that are before this court but the jail refused to take them because they just didn't provide the level of care that he needed me to be rotated several times a day i believe it was over two hours so many we can jump to the bottom line of reading the just the court's opinion here it's hard for me to see whether he's really concerned about a failure to exhaust or whether he's concerned about the failure to state claims it is at one point the just record appears to speaking it out loud and what i saw in this case is that's basically what happened so so i'm just trying to figure out what you think the district court is reason for dismissing these case judgment in this case refers only to failure exhaust correct that's correct so do i guess i'm i'm a little i'm struggling a little bit counsel as well with just sort of the scope of the appeal i understand we've got issues about grievance mr hernandez after his release from the hospital friday most of the time until may of two thousand and fourteen in the jails hospital there were times when he was in the idea see custody or back of structure you know when he was at the jail he actually learned about the grievance process from other inmates and with their assistance they were able to write a grievance for mr means and he was able to a plea appeal based on the jail's inability to properly tarnish him and move him from his stationary hospital bed to a jerry chair which is essentially a wheelchair for somebody with then some point along the way i have identified a few other grievances that he was making seems to be talking about the showers at some point he seems to be talking about losing feeling in his feet not being rotated properly inaccessible housing is it your position that he's exhausted all of those or some and it's not all which ones yes and which ones no your honor the issue about the shackle you were limited to the first five or six weeks when he was hospitalized initially housed the jails hospital and the claim relates to the fact that they cannot basically provide basic medical care you know as a result he suffered pain because he was lying on his bed or in his chair each and in that's the august social worker ever provided him with a blank grievance for one of the social workers who testified at trial center twenty four years of experience she's never service to grievance from the hospitalized detainees and doesn't provide point grievances unless they're specifically requested but i why you think that in light of a the language in the minute order be federal rule of appellate procedure for a seven capital a little to me that says if it just for court fails to complete a rule fifty eight form the judgments considered final anyway three hundred fifty days and our court's decision saying the real question is is the district court done with it and the just report says it's not a particularly bad idea to for you to take this upstairs so i think you're just for failure to exhaust they were dismissed because mr judge stable felt that they do not reach the level of a constitutional injury that he says case is just missed without prejudice civil cases terminated period  then as i said even with that that was the whole reason frappe four was amended because there were a lot of district judges so this is not something unique to judge said go a lot of just for judges who just want filing that will fifty eight form and so the rule now has kind of back up provision for when you can be confident that the case is finished in the district court yes rather and that language civil case terminated actually was also present in a july sixteenth two thousand and fourteen or level and feel to do so as you're supposed to turn the clock back and change the way he exhausted and or another way that asking that question is is it meaningful in a failure to exhaust case when no more remed then you can't fix the failure to exhaust it either existed or it didn't and that issue is the issue on review at the court of appeals certainly are and i certainly agree with with what you're saying as far as there were no other available available remedies for the plaintiff with respect to his restraint claim the district court in this case in the in the language of his oral rulings specifically says that he delivered there's no deliberate indifference in his other  claims and that's the crazy thing about this order that's why i mention this to mr morsi it's a very unsatisfactory explanation because normally when you're talking about thirty to exhaust you're looking at things like the  instances attempted and even in introducing this case before your court this court wants to introduce the merits of this case so badly however the rule is that you have to get over problems of exhaustion and i think the plaintiff tried to restrict himself to exhaustion but the judge object to send it back for that clarification of the defendant's position here is that it should go back mainly because the point of could have cured the defects with respect to deliberate indifference claim and not necessarily on the restraint  because the what do you think they should have done in the deliberate indifference claim filed a new grievance no you could have a man of this complaint actually state a claim that was judge's legals point is that the point of being moved from his chair at certain times when you're going to seating that that was it was in custody for over a year and by his own testimony was subjected to a policy on multiple occasions he had an opportunity specifically in august he was hospitalized for a week in august with the flu at stroger hospital he filed three grievances in august he fall another in september he fell another in december and at no point did he ever file a grievance with respect to being restrained distraught or hospital well he may have given up on that who knows but i thought the focus here was on march and april of two thousand and thirteen when he was shackled in the hospital and you all taken the position that wasn't exhausted filed or somehow created a timely grievance about what the procedures were there's evidence in the record your honor that correctional rehabilitation workers visit him two times for a week and that ok with him and what evidence is there about informing him about the grievance procedures there is no evidence of that your honor in this court's jurisprudence does not require that the jail inform pointis of the grievance procedure specifically he doesn't know your honor there's nothing that the cases cited by plaintiffs actually are not helpful in his king can correct he is not incorrect it's that in the difference between king in this case is that the jail took affirmative steps to block the grievance process in that case here that's not the end you know the king was just transfer he was transferred in there were procedures that were also changed that he did not know about it's my understanding of the case that's incorrect but if there's no evidence that judge they was perfectly correct the system works much better if everything is done in writing as we go and if people make copies as we he him in a few minutes ago but if we've got an inmate who because of his physical condition is unable to do that i don't see how you can hold him to failing to exhaust procedures he doesn't the correctional rehabilitation workers are trained to give someone assistance if they are physically unable to write and they provide and there's also evidence that mr hernandez actually wrote his own grievances in this case that was later correct yes with the help of other inmates right he actually but there's a fifteen day limit for filing grievances right yes wrong ok so that was i don't see how any of that evidence from after may of two thousand and thirteen has any wrong in my argument to the district court and again to this court is that he was subjected to that policy consistently and at any point in time come i look counsel i'm certain be impatient about this but if i understand the sequence of events correctly he's shackled he thinks that's a violation of his constitutional rights will sleep but in the period of march through april twenty third teen while he is  hospital bed how has he been what grievance procedures are available to him and how does he know what you are it's not clear whether or not he knows it his claims and no evidence that he does