one question i have is where there really are three three claims here as there are in some other cases where there's just one which was lost to three different times well i mean that would certainly be our position your honor which is that fundamentally that he'd been validated he wasn't given any evidence he was placed in minnesota it mistreated segregation as a result of that validation and basically told you have to remain here until we get some confirmation that in fact you have been validated when the president ministration received finally received some documentation on his prior validation of which he'd not been made aware they looked at and they said this doesn't meet our current standards and so they sent it back up to sacramento to have him revolving using the exact same information he was made aware of that either during the entire time period he was kept in administrative segregation once he was revalidated which happened after she filed hi he was transferred to pelican bay he was placed in the shoe pelican bay and retain there and the entire time that he was in pelican bay he was there based on the fact that this validate that this revalidation had little mystified about why we even have this issue here because it seems to me that there are cases in which there are different claims but i'm not sure we have different claims we have one claim or can process for being in a ministry segregation it was once exhaustion   he was finally given a review of his file and was finally given the information upon which they relied for his validation and he tried to challenge that yet again i mean our position your honor certainly that this is really just one claim are separate if given your your on as i've said i would i would just submit on that on the theoretical issue of whether total disaster is required other than to note that the second circuit has fully exhausted claim is dismissed there's a question as to whether for example the litigant or mr lear in this case can afford a second filing so it's not just a statute of limitations bar it's a question as to whether we're creating a procedural rule that i mean certainly that would work your honor but when a court is faced with a claim in front of it that has merit the court must proceed on the claim it can't simply dismiss it because there are other claims around that may not have merit it the court may may want to but middle it's before it's between there's an informal level and then there are three levels of administrative review the grievance i mean excuse me the revalidation occurred between levels two excuse me between levels one and two and he was actually allowed to bring that issue up in here is when once he arrived in pelican bay he received his wardens level decision the second level and  it's a point there you're irish two opponents supplemental excerpts of record seventy two at the very bottom there is a section that allows this trailer to add any sort of additional information that he would want and in there he said first of all to this date many request forms later i've not received the supposedly one twenty two which is his validation dated nine four nine six or any other documentation relied on to validate me as something i'm not and now here at pelican bay shu with we know that the director's level decision specifically considered issues that occurred afterwards now we're not asking the court to determine exactly what the scope of the unexhausted claims are as i said we would suggest that all of the  claims are have been fully exhausted but that's going to be a factual matter i think for the trial court all all we're asking is the court to on remand say that just say the district what you applied the wrong standard it's not a bright line rule it's a question of what claims what excuse me what claims with the district court on notice about and what claims were they afforded opportunity to address internal set forth the purpose behind this statute was to reduce the quantity which increased the quality of prisoner litigation and we met that to allow a court not to get in policy reasons behind the a b s exhaustion toll exhaustion rule are analogous including allowing the lower allowing the district the scuse me allowing the department of corrections to do a full fact finding investigation to give our position would be that there be a tolling in addition to that but either either way it's a new complaint is filed based on me fully exhausted playing there's going to be a statute of limitations argument where we we are a case where the plaintiff was saying that he didn't need to exhaust it's entirely different from this case where all we're talking about is what to do with fully exhausted claims and because you're honest clearly we're is clear we've been referring to the nine hundred ninety six events there's a little bit of of ambiguity there as to exactly what that is in that the trial excuse me the district court look at the  ninety eight where they looked again at his validation after he'd he'd filed numerous appeals and constantly hammered away at the the president instruction to address the issue where they looked at it again and added some mean if you look at his institutional classification reports throughout ninety seven and ninety eight it's relying on the exact same information the only reason for placing him and retaining him in the pelican bay shu over and over again i when it goes back well first the legal issue which is that the total what we're calling a total exhaustion rule is not required and that the district court should should dismiss the an exhausted because there is a bunch of factual information from ninety eight ninety nine which can depend considered earlier so what is your argument about my those later are relevant to his claims and i'm looking through the complaint there's a lot of facts in that that have nothing to do with with much at all so that certainly needs another if it's possible that there are facts in the complaint that might give  relevant to or necessarily intertwined with us and therefore part of the original grievance in one thousand nine hundred six i think we've got some long nap when you may be fil statute of limitation notice or whatever and then we asked well if these things relate back to our all our incident to this one claim they can be asserted as part of that claim that's the kind of thing i'm getting at if the district court could determine