statement about an isolated incident of a green just misconduct by a federal prison guard officer preston intentionally encouraged inmates to attack an individual inmate mr hoffman by labeling him a snitch and offering to pay other inmates to harm him as a result mr hoffman was brutally beaten in his cell by another there is no just view that this conduct violates the th amendment the question here is whether mr hoffman may see damages to redress his injury under the answer is yes by name supreme court precedent instructs that a federal prisoner may seek damages under the th amendment in this context in farmer  there then later on when the decision was discussing the deliberate and different standard and all of that subjective recklessness must be shown it explains that s explaining the context for why it's still thought that subjective recklessness is the appropriate standard even though it was a civil suit usually subjective recklessness in the criminal so it did acknowledge that it so it's still a specific instance of misconduct mr hoffman is not challenging an ongoing policy or more widespread present policy which would be wro individually it would have to be through the federal tort claims act which substitutes the federal government as a defendant and we do not think that is an adequate alternative remedy here the supreme court held in a performance of their duties while they're on the job and last there is a constitutional claim or a claim under federal law so i think the f c c a excludes all other actions except for your intentional tort claims are only covered for law enforcement if they're not for their question about read their may be available when no special factors counsel has addiction and here are any extension would be exceedingly modest the only difference between this claim and the claimant carles then is that the injury arose from an officer provoking violence instead of denying medical care and our view is that there's no reason a claim should be available for denying medical care but not when an officer intentionally instigate an assault on a prisoner there is no separation of powers concerns that were present in a box be such as national security or foreign policy and this falls within the realm of cases where a damages remedy is necessary to deter unconstitutional conduct and to redress past harm it's individualized mistreatment of an individual and made by one rogue prison officer and this will not interfere with the executive branch bit but the record also shows as you are at it as you are seventy two and seventy five that it was a different grievance that was rejected because it was photocopies so the declaration that mr hoffman submitted actually has nothing to do with those on numbered grievances and there is no evidence in the record on summary judgment showing that he actually gave those administrative grievances to the case manager there's also is no counsel and this is done this is a rotel the six dismissal this is farmer itself that the supreme court did not address anything to do with whether it was extending dividends in that case now yes it was a bit in this case but it's not uncommon for the supreme court to just not address whether it's extending a those things right there carlson involved a kind of medical delivered a different medical need that didn't involve this type of a claim now why is that significant that's significant because in a claim for medical care there are medical records that are left behind there are doctors who can test the buy about what treatment was provided there are additional doctors who can be called the expert witnesses to testify about what treatment should have been provided this case by contrast turns on this is due to the interaction between a prisoner and a prison guard the last to perhaps thirty seconds or a minute and then three or four months later resulted in an alleged assault on the prisoner so particularly in light of the supreme court direction that a new context breathe easily satisfied that this this this is an extension even if it's a small extension of the and this court and the supreme court have repeatedly recognized that matter that are often had to do with medical claims and have described it as because again you know what i would point to did the length of time that a medical cases involve you know that involves a much more robust record whereas here where you're talking about you're talking about constitutionalized you know very small and minor context they will say that much i would still make the argument that that is different and that this still extend even beyond farmer which involves you know a transsexual prisoner a person who was part of the new context argument in a box itself it did not compare them to farmer farmer was cited in the that did not like the supreme court didn't know about farm and so i think with an easily satisfied standard we get past that i'd like to move on now and talk about the alternative available remedies which is one of the main special factors that should be considered here we have the prison remedy we also have the possibility of injunctive relief and i think that's worth mentioning and thinking about a little more deeply we have a great length of time between the  is the reason that congress didn't want didn't want to create a cause of action and you have examples of that in the form of the legislation allowing that allowing an f t c action against prison guards for example  is that farmer falls within the same context as carlson and this guy can fall within that context as well and that as p c a is not an adequate remedy because as the supreme court