under the peel already beginning with the merits mr dooley adequately pled that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a sufficiently serious mental health need to his complaint alleges that he suffers from severe depression and that he has repeatedly requested appropriate treatment including by pointing to the fact that a jury found him mentally ill the defendant's response has never been that mr dooley does not have a mental illness much less that he's been evaluated and is receiving some other appropriate treatment at sentencing or is part of his claim that they should have had later examination say it's my impression that it's part of what the sentencing court must find in order for him to be classified so it is supposed to happen at the sentencing hearing i think in some situations it happens at a later hearing but i want to be very clear right to have it determined at a later time i think it is up to the court the sentencing court whether to do it as part of the sentencing basically the sentencing court has to make that determination that's correct and i want to be very clear about something upfront which is that what the judge did or did not do is not the basis for mr dillard's claim his claim is that he today has a severe mental illness and the reason he's pointed to that jury verdict both to the defendants and now to the courts is to try to get someone to take him seriously if you look at the complaint just to make this point clear starting on page fifty of the joint appendix it says the point of suffers from acute serious depression sometimes bordering on manic depression and the sufferings of stablish a serious medical need and this is just going to rebut the defendant's i think almost exclusive argument that dooley is pleading some kind of the prison system doesn't have to then constantly give him a psychological exams today to determine if he's co d i do think that if a prisoner comes to the appropriate staff and says i have a severe mental illness i have severe depression and just quoting again i'm suffering men agonizing mental health pain and trauma that he doesn't need to be evaluated and what shouldn't happen is what the record allows you to infer here is that they told him sorry your required to with one caveat so st what the policy says is you have to identify those individuals directly involved and the only defendant directly involved here mr goss but and exhaustion argument based on that has been waived your honor as this court sentence will his grievance denial acknowledges we've discussed this previously and i think that's a waiver of that exhaustion argument and just put them in context mr goss is the license psychology manager he's the one at th i think as the being a decision explains a magistrate judge explains you can under nine hundred and eighty three hold someone liable on a version of a supervisory liability theory when they have knowledge and acquiesce in the denial but they're present prison policy has to be clear when it says identify those directly involved that's not his client so if they're not directly involved then you're saying there is responding superior liability here you can't be saying that area then others who have knowledge and acquiesce in that action so we do have to show more than responding at superior i agree that what you're what you're arguing is to be directly involved is not to be personally oh no i think those are the completely the purpose of the grievance procedure which is to say these are the people and i'm going to sue if i don't get relief this is the people the people who are responsible for that may be what the d n c has in mind as the purpose of its grievance policy is dollars if they have knowledge of the events and acquiesce in the actions or here in action of a subordinate they can be held liable we can't just say as in the road case you're the governor of pennsylvania and you should have done something but here there are allegations that he made it need to defend an individual be aware of his requests and that they did not take any action to override so that would fall in the knowledge and acquiescence bucket  these kinds of technicalities they've got to be clear in their prison so that's our position on it on exhaustion your honor but you know you think everybody maybe got off on the wrong front on this particular case because of the kinds of complaints that he from there and i get lost in this morass and i certainly understood understand the concern your honor and i think if you look at his complaint it is one hundred percent clear that his claim is i am mentally ill now and i need treatment and i think the same can be said of a grievance it does not say in those words but what it says is i should be given de code treatment and what that means in this actually is prison lingo for i have a serious mental illness and i need mental health treatment that's what  so the nd point i do i do want to address something you said your honor which is that the judge at the sentencing hearing rejected this or there was a separate hearing and as i tried to explain our claim doesn't turn on that but it is very odd to me that they have continued to make that assertion because it is completely unsupported one would think if that happened they would submit a court record they have never provided duly or in court with an indication that there was this type of  focus on your honor and that's because again the complaint is i have a severe mental illness i've asked for treatment the defendants have said no and left me to fend for myself and that is a prototypical way to maybe if i had that that make me a state law claim but dooley code status amounts to cool it unusual punishment yes your honor will we have to show that the denial of mental health treatment is causing him is a sufficient mental illness causing himself classification it's a classification that you're complaining about that hasn't been made that is what he wanted the reason he doesn't want you know he's not doing it you know for fun what he wants is mental health treatment but the way this is framed the way the complaint is framed is you're refusing the decode status now i understand you're saying yeah but he only wants the status so you get treated but it assertion in the complaint is you're not giving me the code status so you have to make the case that refuse to give the code status is independently a constitutional violation it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment you can make the argument you make about without it he doesn't get treated but that's the pitch you've got to make isn't it well your honor i think they're one and the same he's saying decode because that's the name for treatment for his illness and just returning to the complaint he may not rely on that it opens the gate to what he wants right that status decode treatment in the pennsylvania system is the name if they've been in there  page five of their brief they say that shorthand for identifying those inmates with the most serious mental health needs and again i don't want to waste your time quoting from the complaint but it does say i suffer from depression on page forty nine i suffer agonizing mental health pain i can't sleep i'm paranoid throughout the day i have nightmares because of my mental illness this isn't a technical claim to a classification he wants help and this means he's gonna show deliberate indifference so got a subjective  objective combo right help us with the with the objective competent here what is the objective what do you have in the pleading that would satisfy the objective pro prototypical aid the medical get back to my original question which is what triggers the obligation on the part of the prison to classify him he contends in his complaint he has a jury verdict and that's conclusive is there an ongoing obligation by the prison system if he says he needs mental treatment that they then have to classify him as de code you said earlier has to do with the sentencing judge i think i'm just needed is a finding from the judge ok the record isn't clear about whether that happened or didn't but it that's right that's the trigger and that's so the nd point is that i don't think so i think he just happened in two thousand and two and they think that this helps them that this was so dated but the point is that today he is coming to them and same i have a serious serious mental illness please help me and where is the border vision that says that the prison system shall classify as d code where i'm trying to get to with the subject of the pleading says i'm mentally ill i want help but the standard is you either have to demonstrate you've got a physician's opinion that you've got a medical condition or that you've got a condition that's so obviously serious that a layperson would recognize a need for treatment does that mean that just you know by their very nature psychological injuries are not ones that are manifest so but he's just standing there are you saying that is sufficient to meet the objective prong of this test for a prisoner to say i'm really messed up i want help good give me from the complaint where he says something other than his assertions write his conclusions about what his mental medical condition is something that would say you know that a layperson would sample this guy's in his hour you know i spent two hours in my soul banging my head against a cinder block every day or i'm completely unable to function and by virtue of the fact that i haven't eaten for three weeks or is are there any factual assertions at all that a lay person would look at and say clearly we're talking about something mentally ill well we just do we just have assertion i really sick so i think the best i can do for your honor which i think is more than sufficient is page forty nine i am suffering agonizing mental pain lack of sleep i'm paranoid throughout the day i have nightmares and i've suffered severe physical abuse because of my mental illness i think the problem here is like the district court they are asking you to read this pro se inmate want the opportunity to answer any questions the court has we i do think it's quite clear that there was no jurisdiction to issue it and if there was the court got it wrong didn't read the plain text of the statute well let's hear what your  to render what is in fact looks like advice re opinion if this ever comes up again this is a strike how could you have the right well there's nothing in the p r a st that prohibits calling strike now  article three of the constitution right well your honor if there is a practical consequence to calling a strike now you are right in our brief the being made is going to be more circumspect when brains next action oh you mean me say there's lots of great reasons to do it but i've got to bring it back to or three there's no case or controversy is here how how can there how can it be right to say this is a strike if there's not actually a question about whether or not this is an issue that has effect on mr dooley right now well if you're saying it doesn't have it has an effect now on him in terms of the consequence that in the future he may bring an action and is this going to be controlling in the future that it would have to independently confirm that a strike was called so what it becomes relevant but have to independently confirm that it was a strike and this is all relevant again not as we believe on the basis that it's going to affect him in the future in terms of how he brings an action as well isn't there a difference between a warning nice and court that makes a decision well that the district court would be the in the best position to know that and this court has said unburned that the this record should be explicit in clear the district court it's actually the district court that's reviewing for whether something is a strike is in the position to know that but you just acknowledge in response to judge reduced question that another district court someday maybe they have to answer that question we don't know we will ever come up it may never come up in terms of the three strike rule yes it may never come up then how can it be constitutionally correct for this district court to be clear now when by definition there's no case or controversy you know they never come up and i understand and i think the difference is that what we're really arguing about strike because it could be right it's dismissing a case for failure to state a claim is a strike and if it's not that it's misleading and if it's controlling i mean is it is a controlling on the you know it's very confusing it's illegal or to go beyond the constitutional bounds of the court as if it's you know you may say well we're making district court an offender for a word but it's a pretty important word if you are declaring in advance of an actual case or controversy what the legal consequences are you not outside your judicial bounds we don't believe so for the reasons articulated your own is that there's a consequence to be made in the  futile as heartily as usual to dismiss without leave to amend a process a complaint such as this is not i mean the allegations of the harm he suffering are are pretty serious are they not well i think his claim has alleged deliberate indifference ledgers deliberate indifference and but his claim has to be understood as the barrow and very narrow claim that he's making which is that because the jury found him guilty but mentally ill he's entitled to be designated as a decoding me and that very they've been in the in the briefing at some point allegations were saying no i'm suffering now i want help now because i've got problems now the fact that i had problems in only lead screens to what i'm telling you  i've got problems now i was mentally ill then i'm still mentally ill i think mr duties allegation is not a failure to treat it's a failure to designate is a decoding made and what is the obligation i get back to that what's the obligation to classify where satirize and i come up well under state law under section nine thousand seven hundred and twenty seven the jury once there's been a guilty but mentally finding guilty but mentally ill finding by the jury there's a hearing at sentencing where the judge makes the determination as to whether the defendant requires treatment now and that's the same determination that's made when voluntarily in voluntarily committing someone civilly so they have to show is a severe mental facility disability and that within the last thirty days the defendant has attempted to inflict or inflict more inflicted serious bodily harm and that's when you have thirty days temp of limitation so once he once he's in prison in order to be designated a decode inmate there is there has to be a real world practical matter you've got mr dewey saying i need help now he'd help desperately i'm really really badly mentally ill his assertion is d no matter how many times or say that matter how many times they try to demonstrate that th determine this yes he's i can assure you ron is that was to do you know why this isn't in the record was to do he is currently a c code inmate and that he has been diagnosed with persistent depression disorder he's just not a decode and that the response of the grievances refers to the court records which is why i asked whether there's an ongoing duty and you said there is this is your judge and the temporary since we've examined your court documents we've examined your court documents your if your interpretation of your court documents should be addressed by the judge if you do not agree with the court documents that should be addressed but the judge then the person is saying to him it's all about court documents as compared to ok we'll get you examined for serious mental right you're honest because his grievance w very specific he said in very short language i should have been i should've been put in there in the r h u m a d code because the jury found me guilty but mentally ill that was his grievance and that's what the that's what the addressed in the prison about the that's why he was guilty but mentally ill at the time at trial he claimed to be schizo frank and while that's not in the record that is in a decision out of the eastern district of pennsylvania so it just highlights the volley this claim that he's talking about something from two thousand two that has nothing related to what's going on now so could he and then this in order to you can amend because as we've shown in our complaint is that we shown in our briefing i'm sorry you're you can't and then because he's violations the assertion here is mr goss at a minimum was acquiescing constitutional violations fusing to pay attention here but what's what's wrong with that if  grievance procedure and he's named him in the complaint and he's made the assertion that i've repeatedly told these people about my mental condition how is it at least not sufficient to get past the motion to dismiss have the decision whether or not let her in mental examination well again mr dooley is regularly seeing psychiatrists and psychologists and in terms of taking someone from a decode to a c code there would be a psychiatric review team that would make such a determination to think well he was originally a decoder honestly this is not in the record but he was originally decode based under schizophrenia but that was downgraded to a c code and now he that's what he remains as a c code based on  depressive disorder so when there's not you know i also want to point out just one other thing that there's not that big a difference between a c code and a decode in terms of the treatment that they receive and so what is gus's john he's a licensed psychology  t what what does he he doesn't make these decisions he just reviews the decision i can't i don't know the answer to that you know i'm sorry in your position i would make a difference with respect to supervise reliability well this isn't a claim of violation of policy or practices so i can't see a basis for the supervisory liability acquiesces but given acquiescence but that's a term of art that doesn't mean someone that has reviewed or investigated going on that would be acquiescence would it not knowing the right to because well not what you say in that the fact that a person holds a position where they're just reviewing insulates of liability no matter what the evidence coming before them get my understanding from this course decision road is that it's not enough to allege an investigation or an adjudication of a grievance may not be enough that me there is someone who made the initial determination the initial designation to downgrade him and that's might be the  proper well let's just try to be clear about this is the position that the commonwealth is taking is that no matter what mr goss does because of the position you hold as a reviewer he could never be liable for yes i'm not going to it would make a difference for supervised reliability you seem to be taking the position that there could never be supervised reliability of a gossip part because of the position you hold and that seems untenable i'm trying to find out whether that's actually the position the commonwealth is taking no that's not i'm not talking about i don't think there's a claim here of supervisory liability but that doesn't fact seem to be exactly one of the claims one of the claims being made if i miss the most i'm misunderstanding mr garcia badly is that these defendants at least what's the common cost to and maybe cost more directly are responsible for this man knocking appropriate treatment which he would get if you had to decode i understand that to  nature of their argument now i understood you do when asked by judge sirica what is the character of mr goss's jobs responsibilities part of your answer was in effect it doesn't matter because he's just reviewing so he can't be liable now that prompts this question is it really the position of the commonwealth that because of the position that the person has gone to house as a reviewer he can never be liable because that seems like an odd position to take and more more of a reach than you have to make you know i don't think there's a claim of supervisory liability here i it's not based on i'm sorry maybe i missed a mistake in myself it's the claim here is not based thank you your honor if i could just start briefly i hope with the strike issue i think there is clearly no case or controversy for a district court to presently decide whether this is a strike and i just want to emphasize this it's not an in order and make clear the court had no jurisdiction to issue it and you so related you know one of the reasons you don't resolve issues prematurely is that you don't get them wrong and we think it's ok so good that he answers a question now the argument to be something to the effect of you're being inflated to weigh in and start nd guessing prison administrators when when they're when it is clear they were waived that exhaustion requirement when goss implicates himself he acknowledges his own role when he denies the three events and then again we go back to this parsing of their policy as to whether you have to name  questions on which there is no clarity and the number of times references were made to things that are not in the record illustrates that at a minimum mr dooley should be given leave to a manned and i think there were speculate to the district court here it also illustrates  that what is all too common in these kinds of pro se cases where a court does not apply the normal rules of pleading as we went through this claim is clearly that i have severe depression i can't sleep i'm paranoid i'm suffering and nobody is paying attention and i do think these kinds of extra record you know beliefs and fundamentally a belief that he doesn't actually have a severe mental illness is what drove the decisions below and what's driving the defense argument here that's simply not proper and the case has to at least be