thank your honour's may please the court hearing programs the district court dismissed his bare housing accepts discrimination claim under rule twelve b one finding that because he did not pay rent he was not that black standing over his claim and the alternative it dismissed  wrong way st it had jurisdiction over mr wets claim like all other planes arising under federal law under federal question jurisdiction and the fair housing act only required him to be an aggrieved person housing it's not a jurisdictional question because the fair housing act as held by the supreme court and make of america versus the city of miami doesn't create a jurisdictional limit but rather goes as far as article three would allow supreme court case about tester if you had no intention of ever renting but were merely showing up to see whether or not there would be discrimination when i asked about has and conditions at those people didn't pay right either and not supported by the clear language in the statute that says or otherwise make or available or deny it well because of sex and isn't that what happened here didn't didn't didn't the appellee make an apartment unavailable is that right or no bed does seem clear to me as well your honor whatever the ad is that there has been some discussion about this other provision in the statute f one that adds the term any renter buyer so that seems to show that there was part of the statute where some housing claims did relate to you being a renter or buyer but these are that's everyone but a b and b which is what he's doing it or don't require that at all so with the reference to the pro se pleading none the less are we going with both complaint that may greatly affect whichever it will be we operate under whether we're going under the unit and what i mean i do and and it's true that there's a difference between these two documents he filed in his when he filed his amended complaint you attached a letter explaining why he was amending it i was concerned about things like addresses and adding additional facts so mr webb seemed to understand his amendment as a settlement to the original complaint rather than a replacement but even if the court only wanted to look at just the amended complaint he still references that there housing ac discrimination and specifically references the previous action before the office of human rights which was about the same set of facts and in his response to the motion to dismiss he also dealt with these their housing x x discrimination claims head on he answered the issue of whether this was really about his roommate and said that what he was concerned about was the preferential treatment of the program in allowing a female participate access despite being less qualified so so it's not just that we look at what the question is not just whether we look at the both complaints or only the amended complaint even if we look only at the amended complaint isn't the teaching of our decision and brown vs whole foods that when we have a pro se plaintiff we should look at all the documents and here that would include that would include the documents in front of the d c opposite human rights human rights were actually brought in as part of us that's a motion to dismiss now his complaint itself and his amended complaint did refer back to those previous is viewed so there wasn't the concern here that perhaps the defendant didn't know that he was concerned about sex discrimination or that the district court actually didn't know that that's what he was asking them to rule on because he has consistently alleged that he's concerned with sex discrimination in the way that he was treated how would you  state the standard of for a pro se plaintiff for a district court what should the district court look to in a situation like this and with what actual complaint as amended complaint and perhaps also his response to the motion to dismiss me and by us that particularly because in the interest of death as i'm getting the case right it's important to look at what he was able to a actually my colleague  he asked for a single occupancy apartment and his allegation is that he didn't get it because they get one right four months after he was in an apartment i shared out and well let's stick let's occupant was given her own a female veteran was given her own unit that's not in connection with his rental even assuming that he was a renter even assuming that he comes within the statutes parameters be cause number one he was never deprived of housing and n families that want multiband units there just aren't enough in the projects everybody coming in and gets put in to a small unit and they're all they're not housed but they're in a small unit and it's been given to them subsidized and they're not to wait because they're black and putting moving the white fence into the more ample size apartments and that has to be classic discrimination under the act and if that's her habit and i guess the question is based on the allegations of services sturgiss or facilities that's what the statute says services or facilities he's he's asking for a single occupancy apart point that you really haven't made that he hadn't really shown that he was deprived because of the x only that she was awarded because of six which you correct not too subtle a difference i don't think that and it may mean that he what this case is about from his elite that one thing that caters from his leading from his perspective yes yes that is not under the statute and under the case law on top or in the statute a case in a multi family housing situation with the fact that they were applying for a vacancy a move to another vacancy later on deprive them of an action under the act as opposed to apply the beginning i yes i think because that in under judge paul arts center area that would deal with habitability not accessibility the fact that you are in a unit now it's different with a disability or no no no the hypothetical as we say i think it is is the they have decided to allow only white people to have single occupancy apart you is this is this is twenty six question is is is allegations official to serve to survive i this is not your letters i think not because all of because the decision to place her in a single occupancy unit occurs for months after he's already in housing so it doesn't result in a deprivation change him well then i go back to the hypothetical it does it if it results in black people the black people horton's that's right i think that's why it affects habitability as opposed to availability which is what this court has said the fair housing act governs and protects but so your view is that access to a better type or category of housing is just not covered so a family that squeezed into a one bedroom and wants access to a really bad drum because it has many children and is denied in comparison to similarly situated existing occupy  language for you to be arguing maybe less so in this court that there wasn't harm could nies of all the purposes of article three of you abandon that argument there is constitutionally a denial of housing and in this case mr webb had continuous town saying for the entire time he was in the program so he has sustained no injury and has no cost of an action under the fair right but assuming that that's the way one dollar would read the fair housing act backing up to the constitutional question there would be concrete harm to a person who for example with a large family has to live in a one bedroom based on race whil because of my sax i was held back from going into the more desirable so when you know that i was put in stead with roommates that would be by the same token constitutional  if he had a claim for emotional distress for example under it under a different statute or right but that's taking it taking issue with the cause of action but just as a matter of harm it's not emotional harm he's arguing about it's i'm living with my mates and everybody what acknowledge on a market it's more valuable to be in a place that's your own you lock the door you deal with anybody maybe not not even  wouldn't have to be emotional harm it could be just you know straight up that emotional harm isn't but it would be a material harm relating to the nature of the unit we could enough to survive under it well the sex he alleged that he was offered a one bedroom apartment by us that after he was determined by the n b a to qualify for one but once he got there he was told that it was not made available to him and he later found out that a woman who was less qualified than he was was given access to those kinds of privileges and conditions and looking at it clearly wigs of the statute under three hundred and sixty for those terms conditions of privileges are all real and under making it not available for rental is also something that gets past that initial pleading stage based on what he has alleged that's pillers hypothetical get it exactly right just because someone is not paying rent whether their housing is subsidized and they are living even if they are paying rent but they're living in someplace they're not literally denying housing doesn't give carte blanche to discriminate against and on any other payment it says to exchange for a consideration so that requirement of making it attached to what you're paying for really isn't what his claim is about it's about being denied access to entirely different programs that afforded additional