they were contaminated with items prohibited by his religious beliefs he alleges he lost weight he had throbbing headaches and suffered other facts of malnutrition which necessitated treatment by the medical unit this went on for three months straight and although the quality of the meals and proof for a brief period of time the food and the food soon reverted back to the earlier insufficient conditions he also got vitamins for appeared didn't he after he went to the medical unit and they gave him a blood test they determined that he needed treatment and he was given not only a multi vitamin but he was also prescribed a supplemental medical meal which was in addition to the food that he was receiving normally are the district court overlooked the underlying facts and instead  robbins handwritten understanding is that and maybe i'm wrong about this but district court wasn't so much denying that he had a ride under the st amendment to this kind of meal but simply that under a trois sort of approach that he just had conclusory labels and things that you're right that it was that the district court was not alleging that he was not entitled to a religious dietary accommodation but he alleged and number of facts throughout his complaint he alleged that from april th until april until january th until april sustain his nutrition i think the fact that he's also forced to either violate his religion by eating contaminated food or to not eat it and therefore go hungry is another reason why it's a substantial part and but the how how how specific is yours what you're really arguing is an allegation that my food did not contain adequate nutritional value to sustain a person is a specific enough allegation for him to go forward i think it was not just that it was inadequate it was the facts that are just that i just stated before we also have to consider that on saturdays the meals that he received was simply five peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and they usually contain jelly which he could not eat because it was contain change during the time that he's on the medical guy he did not he did not specify whether that change there in the time that he was on the medical diet but on the medical i mean if i'm considering a complaint most favorably to him as i'm required to do i assume include eggs and cheese without sufficient knowledge of how the food product was prepared and that's purrs religious beliefs that any contact with food that was not the guinn i e not coming from an animal would be an immediate contamination and there are multiple cour ensure that they're not being given food that would violate their religion well as your strongest argument that a lot of these things do seem vague and they sing like the nutritional value of something specific to him but the general on the whole simon contaminated  something any in macon can talk about is not your strongest argument but he has some corroboration through the back he goes to the medical unit he is determined to be malnourished yes i agree and i think that even if those those allegations are more big we know exactly what happened here that they caused him to lose fifteen pounds that he experienced driving headaches weakness and other health effects and that he was not only  eating or was an eating food that wasn't sufficiently nutritional the way i write is that he's not is that he wasn't eating enough food and i think that's either enough food that he or he was eating contaminated food he does not specifically allege whether he was a claim in the district court should give them an opportunity to remand because it's really the semantics but whether he ate contaminated food or didn't eat it is itself would be problematic a substantial burden talks about the choice and it's the contamination issue is a fear of contamination if he ate it then that would violate his religion if he didn't eat it then he would go hungry and he would be denied a benefit which is that exactly what the st rule of a prohibits so we're unclear from the complying whether he was losing weight because he said i'm not going to eat this picky eater i'm not going to eat this or if he's losing like he was trying to eat it sometimes it just didn't have enough calories or protein for him we're not clear which he's alleging yes but my argument is that that burden either way that it would be because he's violating his religion or that he is not it would also be a substantial burden if from time to time on days when he was hungry or he ate food that he thought was contaminated and violated his religion or on days when he was and ate the food regardless of the fall leading his religious beliefs that would not tolerate the th amendment if he got the nutritional sustenance from eating the food and i think that's a question that is more open i personally would argue that that would be anything and violation that we don't have that how could it be cruel and unusual punishment physically inflicted which is all that the th amendment has ever been interpreted to cover physical infliction of pain and suffering how would it be that if he ate the food and it was an adequate diet nutritionally  direct health effects from this the flu i don't understand then why you were discussing that possibility of whether he you said it most assume that he ate that he in spite of his religious objections ate the food i think that even if he ate the food it shows that the food he was given was not enough ok so and so that would be an inadequate diet which would be a violation both of if a man and the st medicate if he ate the food but it wasn't adequate and it was controlling on the circuit holds that absent defendant's counsel advisement the appellant wouldn't be returned to the subject present the same alleged conduct could occur in the issues not be moot the defendants here have not assured that in fact mr evans has already been tracked been transferred back i'm sorry if he gets the if he gets the relief on the constitutional claim was keep it at that level of generality that will prohibit the department of corrections from repeating the harm to him in the future will it not they will be bound not to do so but the judgment will they not i can see my time is up if i just answer chief judge kinds of question i agree put in a loop aside if you went on the constitutional climb you have a judgment which binds these defendants and their successors in office not to do this again because if they do they'll be paying more damages so why do you need a statutory climb that has a higher burden that will result in the same effect injunction to prevent them from doing it in the future you get an implicit injunction with the judgment against them for money damages because they're not going to continue paying him money damages over the time horizon so i don't understand why that's not practical mootness it doesn't matter the real loop of climbing doesn't matter and if you lose the constitutional court rooms you're going to lose the rule lupul court i think it's actually backwards if you counsel has said with regard to i think what was characterized as binding authority on this court i think what i'd st like to point out is the general rule in the circuit which has been a general rule for decades now and that is that a transfer of an inmate from one institution or out of custody moods to claim one that claim involves allegations of conditions of confinement at the original institution that's what we have here on last there is an institution wrote that's correct your honor and let's there is an institution wide policy because imac a c no matter what institution the and the inmate is being held that the policy will affect him so the court can grant adequate that to that inmate we don't have that here we have a situation where mr robbins was transferred in two thousand and sixteen out of b s p and we have a situation where his allegations are very specific to valdosta state prison he's no longer there so the result is the court really can't grant him any effective injunctive relief by directing in individuals at valdosta state prison to take certain acts that's what this court has long held and that's what the court should find here the claim is moot now i want to briefly address hardwick because i know that's what the appellant's rely on but hardwick is is not and should not be controlling here hardwick which is a nine seventy five dollars th circuit case is distinguishable but before i mention that i want to mention that it is a nine hundred and seventy five case and although adopted as president in this court there are countless th circuit cases since that time that have continued to apply the general rule of mootness transfer results in moodiness in the situations that i just mentioned so there's that but there's also subsequent th circuit ruling hardwicke and this court pointed out that the hardwick decision is unique in that case the plaintiff had brought three cases in three different just county i'm sorry three in in the three different district courts and the court was looking for a way to consolidate them into one and perhaps more importantly that was a challenge to the legal mail system system wide so it's not controlling here this court misapplies and as far as the dacre ruling that was reference again this court even specifically mentioned under the particular store circumstances of dacre we will remain and for factual findings on those circumstances don't apply here the record in that case had evidence of transfers back to the institution at issue of burden ome transfer back the burden is on me appellant the burden is on the appellant because this court has said that repeatedly and not only this court but the supreme court has said that repeatedly in defining what i mean what we're talking about here is whether or not the exception to the moon is doctrine applies and that the great capable of repetition united states supreme court said is that that applies not only in narrow circumstances but only when there's a reasonable expectation the same complaining party will be subject to the same action and followed up by guarantee that the prisoner will be returned to the prison where is right or wrong i agree that it says that your honor that is correct but again because that has not been applied in that manner it doesn't matter has been a and in addition in addition to that again i do acknowledge its one thousand and seventy five to circuit so it does it does constitute precedent it hasn't been applied that way but in addition as i mentioned that involved a situation of a challenge to a legal mail system that was system wide but it was talking about transfer to another prison does transfer to another prison moved in they said only if the defendants guarantee he won't be transferred back yes yes your honor the that's correct i would like to point though to more recent cases of this court for example s and eleven circuit court there was a transfer within the same prison system i believe that was the alabama department of corrections system that transfer was within the system and this court did not require or even mention any requirement that the defendant make a show and says of a non transfer it applied the general rule of this circuit and found that the transfer mooted did the doctor believe claim even though it was within the same system in this court even more recently as recently as last month in april in rulings involving lewdness potential moodiness transfers within the print same prison system has not looked to the defendant to make sure incentives and i think finally on that point i'd note also the defendant this is this is not a case against the department of corrections this is a case where nor could they they have any capability of making any assurances about where someone is transfer they just they simply don't have that authority so i think that is another way in which this case is just not right for  judgment here in favor of mr robbins wouldn't have any binding effect on the institution the next two man would be net when mr robertson is gone the next person who's in there are assuming roberson loses here and has to pay some money and has a risk of e relief in an official capacity what i'm saying is that in this case to the extent appellant asking for inch assurances they haven't sued the department of corrections in there is no nothing in the record and i  don't believe it exists any authority for a warden to be making assurances of as to where an inmate can and cannot be transferred the defendants in this case simply can't do that and more importantly this court  required them to do that with the exception of the hardwicke case they haven't required them to do that and in almost identical circumstances if i might i'd like to to go on and speak a little bit to the substantial burden st amendment and remove underline claim should extent that he's put to this choice under his religion so you have contamination that i don't believe you address at all in your brief and i'm being generous when i say you walk away from saturday's so why isn't there a sufficiently pled st amendment claim or when someone comes in and says for four and a half three and a half or perhaps four months worth all of my meals and every every day i'm given getting contaminated food and i'm getting nothing on saturday i think your honor because he doesn't act he does when you look at all of the allegations by why didn't you address the contamination i believe in in in our brief we argued that he has an that standard but as far as the contamination i think it's very important to look at the entire complaint and look at what he has said and not said now he does say that the meet the trays are placed next to no on beacon trays and that he  that that that he says that in fact if they weren't raptor this is a key problem right for the st four months there come they're totally on rap they come down from the trail with the other stuff every tenet of his religion is violated  that his religion is religious fruit police require him to refrain from jelly without knowledge as to whether it includes pork or ingredients other meet and greets where he doesn't know what they're whether how the animal put to him he couldn't be certain that what they slid on of the door was contaminated but he knew it hadn't been protected yes your honor yes your honor he does say those things but he also states that the choice i was put to  and it isn't enough because in this case the choice he talks about is a choice between malnutrition and starvation and not eating a beacon meal but when we look at everything and we have to look at everything in his complaint we can't just look at certain alleges something that's simply not plausible which is i was either completely unable to eat any of these meals or i or i ate them but they were so meager diluted and insufficient that i am i am placed to a he played a complaint that was stand up under way and i and our position is that it wouldn't stand up under twamley because it has to be a plausible claim and what's not plausible is that he either didn't eat or ate such mere food for a three month period of time well ok if i can recall what that was he our position is that he has argued something that's implausible and there is a possibility requirement for pleading even at the motion to dismiss stage what he's pled is that the meet the meals were so meager that i suffered physical injury and he does plead physical injury of course he does but we also know that he spent three months on this diet is seen by what he call he turns to be a qualified physician or a proper and proper physician i think is the term he used and that proposition evaluated him in said right at this point in your evaluation i prescribe in your multi vitamin our position is that it's simply not plausible to be in to be face taking in the type of meals that mr robinson described which are general description so we have to look to these more specific facts what does it mean diluted what does it mean not nutritionally adequate well let's look what i know that he was your where you're constructing your argument you're jumping from one to the other it's simply implausible that that he was on a diet so inadequate in nutrition and yet after three months on this diet proper physician as he terms that evaluates him and prescribes a mere multi vitamin and it's implausible that that type of that for that same reason it's implausible that he was facing substantial and rational answer and hands dire medical a medical he after two weeks later he was placed on that but we do know that takes two weeks for him to you know get the message to come down to the kitchen to improve to i'm sorry i think you were they were you're saying basically all we got was you can be very sick because they just give you a multi vitamin we are saying that you're on and yes i am wasn't aware the blood test back at the time the games multi vitamin the blood test wasn't back in when the blood test was back he was given the supplemental meal which we know is a is a sandwich and fruit and our it is clear that the defendants know exactly what mr robbins alleged and what his problems are it's clearly plausible the defendants are effectively arguing that because he hasn't died already or he doesn't is not knocking at the courthouse doors that his claims are not possible but we're looking at what he alleged in the complaint and that on itself with the multiple facts that he alleged were sufficient she alleged that that that me at the beginning males were under portioned they provide insufficient calories and protein on saturdays he was served entirely no being in food he was given a medical meal diet after it was determined that his nutrition was suffering and that the medical mill that itself was not the end and that the food was so inadequate that he lost fifteen pounds in a short period of time and experience other  after he was seen by the medical diet they were after he was seen at the medical unit they were entirely i'm surprised at his condition and called it the marty allen diet while he and while he resides at the one other prison offering his necessary conditions of confinement spears case that they just referred to were cases where the transfer was with was where that where the where the plaintiff's changed status spears he was in administers it was in administrative segregation and it doesn't say that he was transferred in the same system and in all the other cases they say to these were transfers where the prisoner was released where they were transferred from county prison to state or federal prison where there is no actual likelihood that he may go back to the one place that mr robbins can go back dakor they transferred because exactly as we have here that plaintiff was already transferred back to the subject prison i thought there were three pri that is what the defendants argue however based on wasn't that right or wrong if we look at the document that they actually cited they don't even the documents doesn't even say that the s p or hey state where mr adams currently is offers of even diet which presumably they do so i would have to question that and ask for more facts that if it's under inclusive that doesn't help the list if it's you're saying that we should disregard the list because it doesn't include the institution he is now out which should be included is one that offers that they can buy well i think doesn't help if it's over inclusive if there's one in there that doesn't offer it then that's a ground for questioning the accuracy of the others that are included in the list you're right that it may be under inclusive but the other issue is that mr robbins has to be include is close to kerry and a one man protective cell unit and from what he has stated that the only t