district court committed reversible error in at least three ways that i'd like to address this morning first by drawing on the wrong precedent ignoring the correct body of binding precedent and failing to recognize that mr of his deliberate indifference crime and then third assuming that expert testimony were necessary to present that claim which is not then the district court and then committed reversible error by failing to appoint pro bono counsel to assist mr brathwaite either evidence here that there was what's the record here about what his interaction with the person was on that regard the record of course with respect to this claim and the pleadings because we're here  ok that's the point i'm trying to ask does that make a difference legally does it make a difference that when he had an opportunity said not not lead i don't believe so your honor because because under williams which discussed solitary or near solitary confinement placing him in a mere solitary confinement for wrong an indefinite period gives rise to a protected liberty interest here regardless of what decision mr grant we had made with the remaining hour of  circumstances that the judge was looking at the record the judge had on the medical issues how is it why is the it was the district court in correct in sa but under the boring case that's b o r i n g a prisoner needs that burden even with a lack of expert testimony by showing that he suffered from a medical condition that was diagnosed by a physician a medical professional and that a treatment regimen was ordered or recommended by that professional will hear the record about that the double coughing claim for example the pain in the shoulder and i have to have double coughing there was there was competing evidence in the record right yes your honor ok so if there's competing evidence in the record isn't that a sound basis on which the district court could say as a matter of summary judgment look you haven't made a claim that there's a serious medical need here that's being you know that they're being blind to and ignoring no your honor with respect to that specific aspect of the claim upon the first motion for summary judgment by the by the medical defendants the understood and maybe i've just got it wrong that there was no factual disagreement that there was competing medical evidence that the that the prison had in front of it everybody agrees to that right as a matter of historical fact there was a period time where somebody said he ought to have double coughing and that somebody else came and said it does not really necessary right that's not in dispute that those things are in the for those things are in the record it's not like we're asking the court to sort out which of those pieces of evidence is better is a big question before the court at that point moment to explain there are two separate questions here that the court considered with respect to expert testimony first is whether mr bradley needed expert testimony to show the seriousness of his underlying medical condition and second whether this progressed we needed expert testimony to show that the medical the better of me in different to those medical conditions because mr bradley demonstrated by reference to medical diagnoses and treatment orders that he had a degenerative shoulder condition he did not need expert testimony to show serious medical condition the second question whether he needed expert testimony to show deliberate indifference comes back to the peterson case here this isn't a question of adequacy it's the airway denial or delay in treatment and because  denial are subjective by nature and come down to see enter or intent or really credibility the courts do not require expert testimony in the circumstances of the question i'm trying to  ask and perhaps to read it in artfully is wasn't it incumbent on your client to show on that second point but there was some evidence of say enter in other words doesn't the second question swamp the first you put your point to the first and saying that this record there but even if you were right why does it matter doesn't matter does it if there's no evidence of c enter willful blindness to serious medical read it we understand it i would just like to note the medical defense of raise the issue of waiver and their briefs and i would point to the court that this case is remarkably similar to similar to montgomery a case in which judge saw the twenty eight day letter the one from december twenty first but talked about how conditions in the shu changed you know i mean isn't the implication of that that yeah it's gotten better it was time will not stand here and tell you that the conditions in particular that assault time are significant back in two thousand and four to two thousand and ten however the one i'm sorry if we take that and just the naming of it  the secure housing unit isn't it if we read the allegations of the plate in the light most favorable to mr brady why isn't that enough to get past a dismissal for frivolous to say you had segregated housing that implies that you are not enjoying what is the whole joining is quote unquote what freedoms are maybe in the general population and that on that and in fact that this record relied upon the boring cases cited in its opinion on and determining that expert testimony was in fact required to support those two claims and as you are mentioned earlier one of the s been troubling me and that is the district court the nice referral to counsel under tab o of discovery to remove for summary judgment on that basis so at that point both according mr president were on notice that our position was going to be somewhere down the line that expert testimony was necessary and i think the court probably had that ability the medical profession its position is that when the district court gaev the medical defendants a second bite at the apple let  refile and get another run at summary judgment that it was on the pro se prisoner to understand i better i better ask for counsel again and i better say i need it's coming out it's that hey if you were if you were look at this you could baby appreciate mr pathways perspective it looks like that this records given the benefit to the represented sophisticated parties here letting him get another crack at s judgment and then saying to the prisoner well hey no medical evidence you're outta luck even though you're in jail indeed in restricted housing why didn't you show up in court with the right kind testimony earlier provided rather than just in the light most favorable to him and importantly all the inference is drawn in his favor is there something is that all by itself well enough or is it enough to say i was in i was  shooting that it's an acronym and who knows what it means like it was an incumbent on him to say something more to say something like and i mean here twenty three hours of the sorts of things you've said in your brief which are not  what the conditions are other than that it's outside the general population but the lay person would pick up the brief your honor they would not be familiar with the term show but to suggest that the district court is not familiar with the shoe or  in the district court proceedings in fact demonstrate that he fundamentally misunderstood what was happening when the medical dependents and others asked to reopen the proceedings he stated and this is on page twelve of opening brief and pages three ninety two to three ninety three of the appendix but he believed that the medical defendants were attempting to reopen the records to present their own expert testimony and he stated quote the defendants had quite a good time of the requests for summary judgment still pending to amend their request and