on october nineteenth two thousand and ten that mr king and a major at the department were making the rounds in the isolation housing unit where mr reeves was a and the inmate was not happy because apparently some of the guards in the unit were not accepting and processing grievances as he felt they should have been the first step in the grievance procedure the part of the correction is to present one to someone of the rank of at least sergeant or above in response to that verbal complaint the complaint says that lieutenant ca to separate prison there are no allegations of any intimidation or threats or an altar creation of any sort while he was still at that unit and if i may to make a   an objective and a subjective component objective lee there has to be proof of a substantial risk of a serious harm on the subjective side the court made it clear that the officer this court has really on point is the irving to be dormant case now the facts from this are drastically different from irving in that case it was undisputed bet there were several guards who were on i think it's fair to say campaign of terror against this inmate they were trying to get him to dismiss a case they had filed against a fellow correctional officer  the one guard in particular who was alleged to have falsely labeled inmate irving as a snitch didn't just do that on at least three different occasions he propositioned other inmates trying to that in that case there were and the guard who had falsely labeled him as a snitch also handed a razor blade to another inmate again trying to solicit harm against that  person the inmate made a complaint and the guard quickly when took out the razor but it wasn't disputed in that case that he actually did give a razor to an inmate in the cases that address afterwards make it clear that in that instance he falsely labeled that inmate as a snitch one who reports on other inmates in an attempt to incite violence against him now we argue that the the facts case are much more in line with what we actually have going on here and in that case a guard was responsible for running a one of the corrections programs had to do with  hospitality and restaurant management the plaintiff in that case believed that there was mismanagement within the program that there is a misuse of state funds so he filed a gr forth kind of in our general theme of the context matters in darkness on the part of correction if an officer had shown other inmates that's a note from one main inmate to another that had sensitive information in it that obviously the allegation judge here says there's a fact question as to whether cain labeled reads a snap and our position is that there is not a question of fact as to favorable to reeves you're saying it's accepted that he did you yes sir that he did use the word snitch that he said go snitch to the major like you did to him with the nurse you say that's not labeling him a snatch it says in contrast mormon complained about a prison official him on another inmate well but the argument here is that this nurse was funneling contraband to be in the meetings so maids would be displeased that's not a constitutional violation the same applies here maybe some inmates could have gotten mad that a nurse from whom they benefitted as far as contraband goes was discharged but still it was just  in the case on october nineteenth that was reporting on perceived failings of a correctional official and go into the williams case which was  again that was just a footnote but it was made clear that there is no authority at least in twenty november of twenty pinned in this circuit that an inmate who were ports on officials is at any substantial risk for well just to be precise the footnote in the separate referred to filing grievances or snitching against correctional officers for alleged mistreatment  in other words forming that a correctional officer was was mistreating inmates is not likely to provoke inmates yes or and they would be sympathetic to  both the object of and the subject of requirements for stating and a commitment claim objectively was it a sufficiently serious deprivation of his constitutional rights to be labeled a snitch by the to obtain the record reflects that reeves participated in a sting operation which resulted in the terminations of a prison nurse who was smuggling contraband this was the subject of mr reeves august twenty seventh where he complained to prison officials that his participation in that sting operation with the cooperation of prison officials was resulting in threats and harassment from both inmates and from other correctional officers think the court can readily see how the publication of mr reeves participation in the sting operation resulting in the nurses terminations would incite the anger of inmates who relied on her for contraband and might also inside prison officials with whom she collaborated or who were engaged in similar activities the threat of retaliation from other inmates is of course a serious concern in our prison systems and that was the underpinning of this courtroom link in irving versus norm are  in that case let me ask you this room that that the other inmates were already aware of the fact that he had snitched on the nurse in light of that is it really objective lee serious as required by our deliber indifference and the problem of course with this record your honor is that we don't know the extent to which all inmates knew of his participation of the sting operation certainly he was being threatened by some inmates because of it and filed a grievance about that in august whether all inmates new is unclear and unknown and i think that's a fact that would have to be developed at trial whether the snitch label from lieutenant kane would incite further retribution is another fact inquiry that i think would have to be developed at trial perhaps lead calm down perhaps the inmates would be emboldened by reflecting that a prison official was pursuing the stitch argument the magistrate judge was confused about the timing and he was talking about earlier days before king state august twenty three of them are seven until the transfer but as i understand the facts here were time i just one day right came they have to steal or drop our or whatever what about whether that's enough to create a substantial harm now i noticed the same thing about the dates i think that the magistrate's recommendation talked about august through september days in the wood to mccain stated as in october and then he's transferred to the  east arkansas unit the day next day all right so didn't the official didn't the prison eliminate any substantial risk of harm by moving him in the next day well if it is a day is that a serious enough to meet the objective requirement that it's the serial i think that's the question i submit that it is your honor and you have to base it on the irving vs dorm our case which analyzed that question but didn't break it down into a timeframe of one day vs a year or anything else but it analyzed the issue of weather a fear of retaliation from inmates in the psychological and mental stress that that creates is a serious enough harm and the court specifically distinguish two seventh circuit cases which said it wasn't bad you had to have physical harm but the irving vs door market said no that the fear of retaliation is a sufficiently serious constitutional deprivation to meet that objective requirement now where do you draw the line between one day or a  week i don't know that you can i think that is a factual matter how much he was concerned but the constitutional principle that the court announced in irving is that that fear of retaliation is sufficient of course we do not know after his transfer to the brickies the stark i'm sorry unit whether there was also transfer of inmate population from the washer tall river unit there whether other inmates within the department of corrections would don't know what the department's record keeping is and how readily available that is through electronic determination i would think it would be but i don't know what is the record show about a sort of isolation or segregation  which reeves was placed here in this one day between this statement than them the record reflects from reaves response to the court's questionnaire and his allegations that despite being in isolation meaning he wasn't teamed with any other inmate in a cell other inmates were within earshot and i think judge bryant in his findings reflected on we don't have enough evidence before us as to whether there was trustee help whether you know he said that but that was in the context of this confusion about dates so i wondered if you think that would apply to this to the one day as well i think it would and certainly that's what reeves alleges your honor in his complaint his pro se complaint he alleges that there were other inmates who could hear what we know not that i'm at the earshot i'm talking about whether he was safe because he was in isolation for that one day and so there was not a good basis for extreme mental distress because he was distraught in a private cell where no one can harm him i wonder there's enough evidence to suggest that he was at risk i don't think the records developed on that point drawn or whether he was being whether he was at risk in transferring from different which is the second one and i believe that the evidence does show the subject of requirement i base that on the analysis in irving which is that there is no legitimate people logical position is making that statement alone is sufficient even if they do everything they can after that point to try to attack you know mr reeves was in isolation during the period of time that he raised cetera so that peace seems to think there an unknown facts about whether he really was segregated in in a private way all the time for it but i think  constitutional violation has to be clearly established trained correctly so after norman how would a reasonable official understand that saying an inmate is snitched on a prison official how would they know that he he called the invite a snitch and that was the one of the points in irving excuse me in doormen that that label was not given by the prison officials so it's my view based on the strong language in irving that if a correctional officer says to an inmate hey you're a snitch and it could lead to retribution from either other correctional officers or inmates then that's a clearly established constitutional violation note that at the time of irving the court there was no established eight circuit precedent only issue and the guard in irving had called the inmate a snitch and the court said well we may not have ruled on this before but correctional officer brigance you knew that that was here we have a prison official who arguably was was providing contraband to others who need now be upset that this snitching of course occurred i just wondering if there is a case or something that  that you have to apply some degree of common sense from irving and that is if you label an inmate a snitch in the context in which it might invite retribution from other inmates the matzoh constitutional violation and any logical thinking correctional officer using his common sense would recognize that labeling an inmate a snitch for having inform on a contraband smuggling prison official would invite that retribution from inmates i think would require specific allegations so it's got to decide this case and this one it's clear that that has serious repr questions to the inmate based on who informed within the context of the sting operation is it is it undisputed that the nurse was distributing contraband in maids start yes and why she was ther inmates punished as a result of that i don't know towards the end my friend said that if used in the works niche might incite others to violence then that meets the constitutional analysis in this case and that's just not the case the subjective requirement requires that an officer actually proceed to a substantial risk of harm and then chooses to ignore it and in talking about how there was not a recognized violation before irving given the about the confusion on the day the grievance that was it was not an exhaustive grievance that the dish report relied on it was originally written on august twenty in eleven barracks he was not actually in isolation yet so he was among other inmates and the substance of that grievance which is in the appendix one of five says i was able to produce some information which i did and the results are not so pretty considering it numerous of the inmates are aware of what i did and it's pretty upset calling me a snitch well there's nothing in there that says that other guards were angry at  mysteries down at the bottom he says officers informed suggesting that he had told other people before following this grievance that he was having some problems so doesn't that tend to support his claim that what king said was go trigger palliation and in fact he'd already told several officers that he would do so no sir because he did not actually four miles this grievance until after he filed the complaint that's the second day that you see  what does it mean to be furnished step wise that means as i've alluded to earlier today that's the very first part of the grievance where you write down your complaint and hand it to somebody who's at least  sergeant they have two days to get back to you they give you an informal answer and if you accept that answer that's the end of it the grievance never actually enters into the department's system no i see you're just saying it is system w yes our that was a casual conversation between one officer who might have spoken to another on another question about how do we know that isolation what is reasonably safe for about one day after king statement isolation is the safest and undoubtedly the and judge by your question about the knowing if other inmates from this unit moved over the department of correction does maintain what they call an intimate list or a separation alert list and before any inmate is move from one housing assignment the barracks a cell block or another unit there is a cross check not only of the housing assignment there they're going to be in but whatever their work assignment is is there a chance that those people mi