in the facilities intake procedures mr bell is forcibly removed from his room transferred to an observation south where he was stripped of all of his clothing required to remain there for eight days last clear the fourteenth amendment prohibits any kind of punishment for a civil detainee like mr bell in fact the question in such a case is whether the treatment that the detainee was subjected to amounts to punishment is a matter of whether it's punishment but if it's just torture maliciously you know i mean what if this williams and this other fellow says he child molesters so they decide they're going to torture and but we just hate him so we want to torment that would certainly also be actionable under the due process clause potentially under a theory and we know what the temperature of fluids in this room where he was kept for eight days without clones we don't your honor we know that according to the government in the summary judgment motion the temperature was the same as in the place he was originally  center someone say it was terribly cold she did and in fact when the when mr ball complained to the nurse about the temperature she said that the reason he was so cold is that you know having the clothes on which again just shows the obvious circumstance she didn't say the room was called just was cold for someone had no well i don't recall her saying that the rumors especially cold i do remember her saying that the reason mr bell was cold in fact he claimed that his bones h was because he was not wearing any clothes now how can you actually be defending the conduct of these people i'm not defending the conduct of these people i'm representing  was on he arrived at rushville on june fourth he spent twenty days in the special management unit after which point he was transferred to the observation cell in the infirmary and deprived was clothing immediately after that mr bell said he would do anything to get his clothing back but he was still left there for eight days without any clothing with only a small piece of cardboard to cover himself until and he actually went on a hunger strike at that point under the erroneous belief that after seventy two hours a court would become involved eventually he did take food and eventually on july first twenty agreed to participate in the intake procedures he was immediately given his clothes back and left and put into the general population there's no there doesn't seem to be any excuse for the treatment he received on the other end he was certainly not a model prisoner he mr bell did not comply with the intake procedures in the river the reason was that mr bell thought that he was not supervisor of the security unit that when he got out the cell he would put his foot up the surprised behind using more colorful language than that and that was it and was soon after that in the same day that mr bell was removed from the cell forcibly and transferred to the observation cell and his clothing was removed well he's regarded as mentally ill there's no that's right a severe civil commitment it is so he's not expected to act in a rational fashion certainly exactly and your honor the the fact that he is mentally ill and is confined as a civil detainee to a treatment center is significant in this case because it shows how far away from a normal convicted prisoner whose rights would be derived only under amendment he is in fact a case like bell which involved a pretrial detainee not someone who at least crossed over the threshold of probable cause to have committed a crime in this case mr bell's because being to taint solely because he has a mental disability counsel on i think what you really need to address what your main problem is is the fact that we are here on appeal from the denial of relief under sixty we are and the supreme court has said you can't use the reason is that the district court in denying rule sixty barely believed it so solely on the basis that it had made no errors and it summary judgment opinion that conclusion assuming that the summary judgment decision was legally erroneous your honor i believe i'm not certain your honor i believe that the the proper case in the best case for this certain circumstance is this court's decision in mendez you know believe it or not if there's some kind of tension between the seventh circuit in the supreme court we tend to follow the sprint guess course that's that's our job of course so i'm asking you about two supreme court decisions one of which the ackerman decision which  that even if the district court has made a legal error and even if that error has been established by the supreme court itself rule sixty b does not provide for really that's a pretty powerful holding that you're asking us to look like the dominant supreme court cases you are i don't as i stand here now having a basis for distinguishing those cases however in the recent cases that are on point and in this court court is permitted to evaluate and whether it made errors on the decision below in fact that's what happened in mendez and mendez the district court issued a judgment later realized that had not considered a magistrate judges report it read the magistrate judges report determined that it made it an error sixty very issue that the government is raised here was presented in that case which is can a district court does a district court have power to correct its own legal errors overall sixty b review what the court this court said was that it does in certain circumstances as where the motion is brought in a reasonable time since and where there is no suggestion that the motion is an attempt to evade expired time appellate time of it and that's what occurred in this case mr bell brought his motion thirty one days after the entry of judgment mr bell or only asleep believe that was in a timely will fifty nine motion as we detail in page six of the reply brief he had only sixty b motion must be brought before the time for appeal has expired is a sensible rule so long as it's applied flexibly and even if typically those kind of appeals will present an opportunity where the  attempting to evade an expired time limit and circumstance circumstances that will be the case i think because of mr bell's status as a pro se individual because of the seriousness of the district court tears and because of his contemporaneous statements to leaving explain supreme court was making a mistake but we're supposed to be following doesn't mean that the district court was required to grant him relief but the district court was required to not deny him relief on three pieces question here it's its statement that it's summary judgment decision was wrong as a matter of law was legally erroneous and therefore by definition abuse of discretion is it your argument that if the district court had just said i don't believe that the plaintiff has given a good reason to depart from my earlier ruling so in the exercise of discretion i deny the motion if the judge had said that you were view is that that decision is effectively not reviewable it's reviewable for abuse of discretion review have the judge articulated bases beyond simply that his underlying decision was correct the our argument would be much more difficult because there is a great deal of discretion for the district judge ratzinger tonight will sixty motion so when now is all that was left for him that's correct had mentioned that is that for example in banks this court had referred to it as a jurisdictional issue that's a clear mistake but again we follow the supreme court thank you not describe this problem it's just it has to do with the standard of  denial that motion cannot be used in order to bring up all of the issues that were incorporated into the judge from the merits a summary judgment motion the court's case a ask one question the issue of fun of the court is that an issue that could have been raised under direct review saying in response to a rule sixty b motion that i am reiterating the correctness of my original decision as opposed to it's too late to make changes in my original  here's your district judge please give me the benefit of my code litigants victory in the supreme court and the judge says it's too late right and the supreme court says that tsra right it's too late to fix you had to take  direct we didn't quite have in ackerman the case of what would have happened if the district judge had said in the sixty the motion i'm right the supreme court is wrong so there i think there's a greater chance of the supreme court might have reversed that but i think if i understand your eyes point correctly you do have that situation in banks if i understand your eyes hypothetical in banks similar to this case you wrong no i didn't get it wrong here's why and that's on appeal from the sixty b the parent wanted to really examine all those issues which were merits based issues and this court said quite plainly now in fact i dressed what the just a court said and said the happenstance of the just record actually joined issues that actually talked about these questions does not change our analysis it does not give us a right to go back and take a look at issues that could have been raised thought i did indeed make a mistake and the reason why i think i'm trying to fix it is that mr bell was proceeding for safety and i didn't get really good i'm sorry i made a mistake i'm going to reopen the case that i apologize right gonzales says there's got to be trained for it says an extraordinary reason and i take that as meaning a really really good reason for doing it you know because otherwise you're just your issues and this court said but isn't that in effect reopening ok well in this court said no so if the direct answer is no this court said the fact that the just a court reengaged went through the factual issues and the legal issues that is not a cause to bring up all those issues again where the where the appeal is limited to the denial of rule sixty and mendez's the case i think that gets to some of the issues that your honor is talking about mendez talks about the authority of the district then mendez also says that if there is a timely notice of appeal then the district court i think has a broader horizon in order to entertain a little sixty motion and the procedure as everyone here knows is that if the district court indicates a willingness to grant the motion then the just a court certifies that makes a statement and then this court and a proper showing then re mans but mendez importantly says with respect to the issue we have here today right and if i if i might quote rule six to be rel appropriately denied when a party fails to file a timely appeal and the relief sought could have been attained on appeal so mendez i don't think is inconsistent with any of the other decisions that we've been talking about here and the last point that we heard this morning is the discussion but i don't really understand because i think you're saying him maybe i'm just used that the judge if the judge had decided he'd made it very serious there then even though the sixty p motion wasn't timely could have reopened the case correct there where you say that i said two things one that that's that's not our argument that's not us today but that mendez does talk about the time limits and whether or not the motion was filed within a reasonable time and at least mendez as far as it goes is to say if the sixty was filed in thirty days the circuit good part record judge plainly has the authority to correct his errors and then if there is a timely notice of appeal filed the district court still has an additional window of time and that's where the could the just a court uses the system where it writes out and says i looked at the sixty yes i made a mistake and asked this court then to remap and so that the district court can correct the error i think we are having a fundamental problem later here anything filed within the time for appeal is not a r within the time for appeal is treated as a rule sixty motion that's just the way the rules i think the the last point if i understand mr bell's are you correctly is that his status as a pro se litigant ought to be a basis for this court to relax its rules in this area and again i would respectfully suggest that this court has already addressed that issue most recently in the discourse decision and ever heart versus brown which i believe was within the last year we have a case very similar to one the one we have here we have a promise a plaintiffs who files a post judgment motions does not file a timely notice of appeal this court emotions panel screens that motion apartment screens the appeal and decides that the only we're not going to discuss any of the issues that could have been raised on direct appeal mr ebert says well i'm pro se i didn't understand the rules i don't know i don't know anything about them the case so these cases should apply to me and the court rejected that judgment so we already have it if you where a pro se are not waiting partner could you tell me again which case this is because i don't even understand the concept of refuse to consider the summary judgment which he says this you metric and in the pool if i understand you correctly if the judge after you know the sixty days was to say oh i think i made a big mistake in the on the  symmetry there doesn't make any practical sense of course it does i think your argument has to be that if all the judge says is i made a mistake and he doesn't give any reasons beyond that such as that the plaintiff has a mental disability it can't states is wrong in deciding cases that apparently favor i certainly don't want to do your job that's just what you did well i did so i did it really have helped us get the briefs discussed the supreme court's cases rather than focusing on say unpublished non presidential orders  put in front of him and on the record that was put in front of him but we're dealing mostly with allegations i thought it was agreed that we don't even know what the temperature was we're not dealing with cold cold but we don't actually know what the temperature was and there big difference between being naked in eighty degree temperature and fifty degree temperature and that's precisely what the district court said your honor that's precisely what the district court said because the district court said look if we're dealing with the convict conditions of confinement case there are opposing party then responds and that's exactly what happened here mr bell responded to some allegations that he wanted to be denied others here or others and we live in a world where the plaintiffs i was very cold the prison presumably what the actual temperature of it's very hard for the prisoner who presumably was not furnished with a thermometer clothes were taken away he certainly wasn't going to be given a monitor to quantify this but the prison might have reasonably accurate records about what the temperature was and i believe we've heard this morning that the record indicated that the temperature in the infirmary was the same temperature in the balance of the building now had mr bell challenge that on appeal h i respond to that yeah the only thing that we know from the record two things one that in this true bell's first room he had a window and he papered over it we've all talked about that and seen that right and so he was then moved to the infirmary where the windows are larger and the only thing we have on the record which is which i have to say is undisputed in this is mr mckay dorie statement that the reason why he took the clothes away were for two reasons one the first one being so that mr bell would be unable to again but that's ridiculous because all they have to do is say to him if you if you try a future you know take your shirt off and cover one of these you know windows well we're going to take the rest of your clothes away right well i begin to intervene the individual has terribly sad we already cut his arm and now blood is pooling on the ground so it's not as if when people say oh you're you know you're covering your window that's some sort of you know  silly problem or problem that gets dealt with in a heartbeat when you have somebody like you know mr bell who was aggressive when people tried to enter the room as we saw in this particular case was aggressive you know you can't just say take it down and then when he doesn't you open the door and take it down clearer i'm sorry i'm sorry other amanda's actually is quite clear that it's holding only applied to will sixty one because under will sixty one which provides an avenue for remedies of mistake there can be remedies for mistake of under mendez which requires that such a motion be brought within a reasonable time it's quite clear that commence circumstances would not qualify as a reasonable time in this case mr bell's motion was brought thirty one days after after the judgment so mendez opens the opportunity that if his motion was not a seeking to open up an expired appellate time limit that he should be provided an opportunity to bring those claims on appeal and we think on that the district court should have the opportunity to consider on re man after its serious errors of law are made clear by this court whether or not the circumstances are right for the court to grant will sixty be released from the judgment for m