good morning your honour's please the court the primary focus of this appeal is the scope of the backward looking denial of access claim in the instant case the scope of such a claim must be determined for two component parts of the case recognized that such a claim is only available in the most extraordinary of circumstances is not to be used where a plaintiff has sufficient information to proceed with an underlying claim in a timely manner and it is not to be used for a plaintiff would receive nothing more than in the denial of access claim then in the underlying claim if the supreme court pointed out christopher there's no point in proceeding with a denial of access claim with the plaintiff will do just as well by proceeding with the simpler underlying claims since this court is repeatedly help if a plaintiff has sufficient information to proceed in an underlying case in a timely manner there is no denial of access claim that is the case here anything since this was appeal was filed to limit the claims in the district court case going forward against those other defendants you know he has not your honor and then also thing is we are having a status in the coming months on it and you mentioned bell which is still good law as you don't how do you think bell is distinguish from the other cases that have failed to establish a judicial access claim what what's the key element or one of the key elements about the bell case well the key element are really  i think the milwaukee police department that case within the full version of all the facts at least that's what the th circuit city and focused in on it was a police officer from the most wanted police department that was involved in the underlying wrong involving the death of bell and then it was the more walking police department that was involved in the investigation and the cover up and there internet effect of way by comparison all of the seven circuit cases since then that said if you have sufficient information to proceed on the case that is enough and there is no denial of access going to the scene waiter but more importantly where this is very different from any of the other cases is just the information that plane that's have shown that they know through the complaint they know for example that flores is tested positive for gunshot residue the twin manthey hair tested negative for gunshot residue that flores made false and conflicting statements when interrogated but flores had blood on its right sleeve in front of a sweatshirt and then a neighbor or neighbors heard cries of let me hair was found in mood after she had been shot and that she had other unspecified injuries on her body so the type of information that it's in this case have is far different than adults and even more it seems than in many of the other cases where the courts have found it being insufficient so those are the main the other thing with pre filing conduct in this case that the plaintiff has conceded is that they know no injuries in this case the only claim that they have of concrete them to believe that they could not pursue their action against flores in light of the corner suicide finding other words what plaintiffs calling the defendants gave them a faulty legal opinion now even initial matter for purposes law that legal opinion faulty or other lines can lead to denial of access claims and we've gone through a number of policy considerations with regard to why there should not and to tell them that if they wanted to look at information it would be made available to them it later was made available to them through a foyer request  but the documents didn't come out till actually the day that the case was dismissed and in my in my right hand or standing just as a factual matter that the plaintiff had already mr chosen not to attend one pretrial conference by the time that december th meeting rolled around that is correct the reason that they missed it is i think it is up in the air i think plaintiffs sandstad in their motion to  illinois state police investigators about why florence is covered with blood spatter they conceal the witness reports of a struggle that immediately preceded the shooting and they gave false statements to the point that's about the substance in december that was designed to as mr murphy points out that was to inform the point that about the underlying investigation and what it showed us on this is  make will take everything you said as true why and i think you agree there is an underlying claim still pending against officer flores and two police departments why are villages why wouldn't the activity that you have just described to post filing of this claim be better addressed as some type of a discovery issue and let the district court judge who's familiar with the case for one million with the allegations from illegal with the conduct of the parties address it through the discovery process as opposed to a separate claim for lack of access because it does constitute a backward looking at five to court claim such a backwards looking are post filing conduct as a constitutional violation for lack of access to the courts claim yes and i believe judge gettleman pointed out a honor the original complaint of course was dismissed because of the duplicity the shanahan police department we're not talking about sophisticated lawyers we're talking about traumatized parents who are why should we recognize a really a separate constitutional tort when because you were able to get the remedy that you wanted and you may still be able to get all of the remedies that you want t the pending action because the mere act of having to file and reinstate which was only granted at the discretion of courts of judge government but the mere fact of having to reinstate the claim itself causes a concrete injury again what what the damages are later how significant that injury is we can debate but it is an injury nonetheless somebody had to write that complaint and what the courts have and i don't and i don't know that i can give an answer post filing i don't know the issue turns on post filing or not post filing what you do have several claims in there and this is a qualified immunity so if you can't identify a case how can we say it's clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity well for instance in there we're in the laporta case there was an access an access to claims claims filed in an amended complaint while the complaint was pending because of the delay that was cause during the litigation because the litigants the defendants the city of chicago had failed to produce information that is i guess qualifies as the host filing claims it happened in the middle of the litigation they amended their complaint to add a slightly different way and see if your response is any different ok so i have no doubt at all that your clients incurred expenses in time and having to reopen the case that is seems clear as a factual matter to me but how do those costs which are real and as you're emphasizing how do those costs reflect or flow from a violation of a constitutional right to access to courts your clients are in court right now and they have the full discovery process to them including the district court's authority to impose sanctions in the event that there would be misconduct during discovery so i understand that you incurred time and expenses or your clients did that that's as clear as a bell to me but what i can do is connect that to the alleged constitutional injury denial of access to courts that's where i get disconnected claims and that at the same time they're asking this court from our position to do away with them because this is a backward looking claim i understand it is post complete there is a complaint that was filed but our position is it doesn't turn out that the injury occurred by yes the delay whether it was leaked months whatever it is there was delayed based on what occurred during this meeting and the wild goose chase that the hairs were sent on the fact that yes they had to reopen the litigation they would not have otherwise abandon the litigation those are all injuries as your honor has just cost anyways that your honor has just identified and it is precisely that behavior that was meant to hinder their access to the court maybe it didn't ultimately bar the doors of the court room but it did hinder and delay the process and cause them concrete injuries and for that reason it is a separate freestanding independent claim that stands apart from the underlying action that the point of this will of course pursue and that's the  was raised in the amended complaint mid litigation there is open factual questions not purely legal questions what are the factual questions that are unresolved that deny us the talent your stiction kudos from exercising a again the issue of what you know what is the injury the concrete injury and our position is at a minimum having to reinstate the case that when that was an injury there may be other injury but that was our position was that the extent of the injuries is a factual issue they also continually reference there are sufficient facts there are sufficient facts that it's very much up in the air at the moment about whether there are sufficient facts the fact that we can actually get words on a piece of paper and file in law the lawsuit and get past the twelve the six motion doesn't mean that there were sufficient facts that are provided plaintiff with effective in meaningful access to this court in fact the extent of the harm to this investigation is a known fact at this point there's been no there's been no independent investigation i mean all of the cases that the defendants the fact that all have cited ultimately there was an investigation that revealed the truth the truth has not yet been revealed and i do understand the court's point of view you have that opportunity the point  we'll have that opportunity but for the defendants to say at this juncture about all they have access to all this information that they got for a foyer request after the dismissal of their complaint gives them sufficient facts well that is that that is a disputed point whether these are in fact sufficient facts which they will have affected access to the courts to redress the constitutional violations to themselves and their daughter this is judge we are there facts that you claim are in dispute that are relevant to the clearly established qualified immunity issue as opposed to whether or not a has been stated and i know that those two issues could go together but just focused on whether or not the law is clearly established are there to spewed it backs on that particular issue i would say investigators etc and that that type of co opting of the investigative process the investigators would have known should have known that that would hinder someone's ability the plaintiff's ability to access the court  that said there is a separate yes independent constitutional violation when the shanahan defendant misled duped tricked the plaintiffs into abandoning a lawsuit based on false facts that are in false at least must be accepted in the speedily fall at this point and when they did so that was an effort to hinder their access to the court and as a result they were required to expend time resources money to reinstate a lawsuit that is at this juncture moving forward but that does not change the fact that there was this separate concrete injury  your answer your question there has been no th circuit case that has recognized the post filing product claim and in fact the other circuits as we pointed out has said that there is no post filing counter claim  this investigation differs very differently also from because as the complaint makes clear all the police agencies were involved in the investigation including the will county task force in  with regard to the statements that they said were unknown facts to let me just back up the statements with regard to the december th meeting were largely if not entirely opinions if we were looking at just a fraud claim that would be in such insufficient for a fraud claim why is a denial of access claim to have lower standards there has been no actors involved investigation because until you go through discovery and until you go to trial you're not going to know what impact the investigation had on a case that's just been insufficient standard to provide for them our access question of whether or not the law was clearly established at the time and determined that it was not is there any reason for us to go further and decide whether or not the plaintiffs have alleged a constitutional violation in the st instance both counsel and the case is taking under advisement