it please the court on behalf of plaintiff and appellant james grow lights reserve three minutes for bottle this case presents several issues first the district court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction because the evidence below establish the girl still owned part of the property that was subject to the s e p additionally the district court erred in failing to consider the additional evidence let's just talk about that for sure i gather the problem is that the bridge in question and the road in question goes to the piece of property that's been foreclosed on directly goes to a right the i don't know where to get to the other piece of property you need some additional something we know from the record that mr grill actually has an express easement but regardless of whether or not he needs permission from the owner of law to you he's always going to need permission from forest service to access the road that goes through national forest lands and to the extent he decides he wants to build a bridge he needs in order to access it and so if a road goes through a forest service lands and there's a parcel of property and that parcel whether it's divided into one lot or four hundred lots needs access to that road and it's landlocked otherwise by forest service land we know that for services is required to work with them to give access to that property and so in this case we know that mr girl actually has an express easement to use the road that goes over a lot too into lot one additionally even if he didn't have the express easement he would have a right to imply easement next issue which is the reconsideration motion mr grown he he realized that the court did not appreciate that he still owned a lot one that the court wanted to know that he had a way to get there and so he attached as part of the record that he has an express easement to use the road that crosses over a lot to into lot one and that is that e r ninety one through ninety three and that's when the district court recognized that he didn't fact have a valid claim but his claim wasn't moot and there was and fact relief that the court could grant and so therefore it was inappropriate to refuse to rule on the other issues and to grant the government's motion because he has a recognizable interest he has land that abuts the forest service nationally land either from the north if you wanted to cross over the uber river which we know from the environmental impact report for service is determined would have the most impact and then from the west which was to come over a scotchman creek and use a scotchman creek road also would require a bridge finally the district court erred in denying the motion for reconsideration because it improperly focused on whether this was new evidence instead the court should have evaluated whether to the decision was manifestly unjust it was clear that denying grow any and didn't get didn't get permits required for that the injustice argument relates to whether or not this is there's an active case in controversy for which the court can grant relief that's the issue that we're dealing with in the in the motion for summary judgment that was filed by forest service so the only thing we're looking at is whether or not there is any relief that the court can grant and because we're dealing with moving this we're talking about a very very strict standard that the court should only find that it's moot in very very rare cases so when the court determines that he doesn't fact have land and that land does abut forest service land and they find that he essentially continues to have standing and so it's unjust not to address his due process claim and it is ministry of procedure claims because  court should have granted mr grills a motion for summary judgment for violation of his administers procedure act rights and then also for violating his due process rights get think that's really what the issue i was trying consider all the evidence why why didn't he wait too long try to get permits for his bridge for two reasons first is that the s u p t is not just for building the bridge nor does the su obligate him to build a bridge the s e p specifically states it's to gain vehicle access to private property and so it both gives him access to the road that runs through forest service property and then further gives him the ability to build the bridge and it also gives him the ability to add a six inch condo line no where in the conditions that are included in the s u v just doesn't require that within the first ten years that he has to actually build the bridge it's just that he's entitled to have land and the terms in the s u p that specifically relate to renewal don't say you can renew if you've started the process to build the bridge what it says is if the permit still needs the road for the purposes for which the permit was granted which was access to the road the permanent will be issued for successive periods of ten years so so long as he has property and he needs the road to access his property then for services is obligated to reissue the s u p and the way that we balance the equities here is that at the time that the s u p is reissued it's at that point that the government has the ability to add new conditions so they can update things like the report so that if he hasn't built the bridge yet based on the original sep they can add all of these extra things that they used to prevent him from building the bridge in september and then prevented him from providing with any process in order to contest whether or not it was appropriate for them to impose new conditions based on the original  as i understand their position was that the bridge who is now proposing was not the bridge they had approved that's what they said and if that was the case then they should have provided him with process to either cement different plans or to challenge that the bridge that he was proposing was in fact the bridge that was approved in the tach the s u v the problem here is that they just said no stop working you don't get to do anything wait until you hear from us and that is the injustice here and then they compound that by just refusing to renew it instead of renewing it and then engaging in a process what should have happened was they should have sent him a notice saying that his plans which they had previously approved in july in september they determined that they didn't like those plans and then they should have provided him with a process so that he could contest was there or not those plants were compliant and then he could either correct those plans or overturn the determination and then proceed with building the bridge but here he was given none of those options and that is why he seeks relief from the court objections to the findings and recommendation and i'd like to point out that when we're dealing with mutants it's the government's burden to show that mr girl had that the court could grant mr girl no effective relief and when they presented the issue to the court they attached a map which i've attached to our one sixty which specifically shows that there's three different parcels identified by three eight pm numbers and then they only provide for closure documents for one of those parcels and the government never pointed out to the courts that girl still owned property even though it was fully aware that girl and property and it talked about that in the next three arguments that they raised then and pointed out either but he's a pro per if you look at but he knows what the hell is better than no one else they knew what he owned what he didn't appreciate was the argument that they were raising because he addressed his continued ownership of lot one in two if he had been represented but if i had been representing mr girl below i would have seen the argument and my response would have said this is ridiculous but we have here is exactly what we have in joan  which is when you have a pro per and he sees a magistrate decision a finding in recommendations and it's at that point that he realizes what evidence the court needed in order to understand what it was to avoid summary judgment but it's an of discretion for the court not to consider that additional evidence because as a pro per we provide a more lenient standard and so therefore as soon as he appreciated that the court did not understand that he still owned property he presented the additional evidence additionally one of the other points that's important is that he owns law one which if you're going to say that we have a problem with reaching the current s u p t it's still appropriate the court can still grant relief because any time he files an application we know from reviewing the record that forest service is not providing him with due process and the magistrate correctly noted that he wasn't provided any process and so this court could rule that in dealing with these applications whether it's reviewing the bridge the renewal or a new application that it's obligated to provide him with all of the administrative procedure act review a notice requirements and with due process of law for the review going to reserve the rest of my time he never football the conditions that would have allowed him to build the bridge of the road and she no longer owns the property to which the road with lead now that's as far as you need to get for all those reasons th one issue for the first time i know that right just so the representation and the easement i mean he attached that to his objections in the district court but didn't say anything about it and say anything about it su judgment in saying anything about in his opening brief here you know we hear about this for the first time in her pocket so you know i'd like to preface my remarks that way you know if if he has an easement which we don't know if that  hasn't been any you know briefing about this easement nothing at this point it's raised for the first time here if mr grill and the southerly owner want to work together to file a new application for a road here we are ten years later of course there's going to be new need that would be required they're welcome to do that he's been welcome to file a new application for the last ten years and has not done so and what he would get if he did file such an application is the same thing he would get if this court found that there was an a p a violation and re mandate for further proceedings i mean he would essentially the result would be the same so you know we writes on this say if there's if if especially is from it's still being used meaning what we contend here is if there was a road and bridge that were constructed and were still being used especially as permit can be you would say that the extension doesn't apply anyway because it was still being used because it was never that's right so so our position on the forest service is position at the time ten years ago was that because mr girl had not actually constructed the road in the bridge there was not an existing use that would trigger the ex the renewal term in the special use permit so if you think about if you had built the bridge in year three and seven years later he's still using  it it makes sense to have a permit that would renew so that he can continue maintaining that existing road continue the existing use what he's asking for here is basically a blank check ten more years maybe ten more years after that it's said unless the permit is terminated in accordance with the provisions of this permanent shout expiring terminate on december thirty first two thousand and seven at that time if the permit he still needs the road for purposes for which the permit is granted so it still need the road right i read that to mean a road that has been built the permit will be reissued for successive periods of time years at the time of the issuance of the terms and conditions may be modified and new conditions are stipulations added at the essentially there still was an s u v at the time he came in with his i gather fairly their bones bridge proposal which the forest service said was not the one was not consistent with the original conditions that's right and he's complaining as well about having that one not sort of cut off before he could  the requirements of the permit which incorporates the environmental assessment that has certain you know requirements for the span of the bridge and avoiding impacts in the stream the other problem was that his california state stream but alteration permit had been this october letter the forest service looking ahead saying it's really you've run out of time here you started your process really a year nine and a half and now we're at nine and three quarters you're not going to get done by the end of your ten or the regulations the new environmental review that's going to be required if you still want to do this and so really the current expired by its terms i mean there was no road there was no new decision terminating the permit the permit just expired by the terms that had been in place for ten years and that mr girl didn't object to when the permit was issued  n standing on the fact that it was two that's right and i mean you know the district court clearly gave consideration to the fact that mr girl was pro se she the court you know explained that he clearly understood what was going on with the government the government's you know raising the story sticks you know issue he responded to the jurisdictional in other ways trying to assert sort of other kind of continuing interest in the special use a little peculiar to say well we decided we don't have jurisdiction and we're not going to figure out whether we actually do well you know this wasn't to be clear it wasn't a change in facts between summary judgment and the objections it was a you know oh i just remembered and i mean i submit that the magistrate judge and the district judge what he own i mean the forest service didn't know that he had even subdivided his property had mortgaged part of it he didn't tell the court that the foreclosure was happening once the government realized that was happening it notified the court and mr girl had the opportunity to respond to that and for whatever reason he did not do so you know i i think the theme of this case is there's been a lack of intelligence it was a lack of diligence and building the bridge and pursuing his case in district court and in this case where you have these new things coming up in the reply brief i think it we see a pattern and  lot too so that they can both seek access that would benefit both of them they can contact the forest service and get that process started it's been it's been available to him this whole time thought what does he lose partiality from scratch that we know realistically how he would be disadvantage if he's short a permit if you look at the administrative record it process that we know that it took them six years to issue the original actually p which included a specific right that it would automatically renew so long as he needed to he has a leg up now and if you started from scratch he may have to wait another six years to get the a lego it may take six years it may take him longer because what we know from where we are now is that when forest service disagrees with the information they provided they don't provide him with process they don't pride provide him with notice of how he can challenge it and i think it's important to know that if you look at the s u p and the plain language that was referenced earlier it said p was issued for the use of national forest lands for construction reconstruction maintenance and use of the road within the national forest for purposes to gain vehicle access to private property that's landlocked by the national forest land system it says that if the permit still needs the road for the purposes for which the permit was granted then the permanent will reissue for successive ten year periods that's mandatory and all he needs to show is that he has property that's landlocked this is a historic road my understanding is that it is in fact an existing road it may not be a nice road but it is a real road that exists in the ground each person that has has property has to separately get an s u it's nontransferable and what we have here is a case where he is asking the court for relief the motion that is presented by the road but there is no bridge getting to the road right there's nothing in the permit that requires him to build the bridge in order to get the renewal because bridges are expensive i'm sure all of us want it not going to have this without the bridge but he couldn't use the road either if he wants now what i've understood is that it's a creek so one point it may be very small or maybe very barge and so there's what they call seasonal bridges where you like to pick them up and shut them down and then you can drive over the bridge and he's allowed to do that when when he  it's just when there was a large flow of water that he couldn't and he would need a larger bridge but what this court is deciding is whether or not he was provided to do process and this is a motion for summary judgment and what we have here is that if it is unclear on the service is dealt with stopping his construction in september and dealt with not communicating with him about his ability to contest the renewal and that is both that they were required to provide him with notice and a process to review he specifically asked for that and it wasn't provided to him and that also violated his fifth amendment rights on the bivins issue that's whether or not the court abused its discretion in not allowing him to amend and the court didn't exercise it discretion because it used the words may and probably which shows that it didn't fully evaluate whether or not it was there when we were looking at the case we know that there wasn't fact a recognizable constitutional right which is his right to d process that that right existed at the time it was violated because they terminated the both his use during the s u v and afterwards and then and the heat there are sufficient flacks that he can plead that the individuals for service were aware that he had due process rights and they chose not to provide them to him and so when we're looking from a pleading standard there's sufficient facts to plead to all of those