being consistently treated for these conditions the symptoms attendant to his mental illness abate to a very significant extent allowing him to live a relatively normal life during the period of time that issue in this lawsuit mr  being treated for those conditions due to a series of transfers between the illinois department of corrections facilities and attendant failure by the defendants to ensure that his medical records including prescriptions followed him through those transfers evidence in the record as to the knowledge of any of the defendants are two things the first thing are the grievances that mr giles submitted to the to the defendants their address to the defendant's depending on which disability he's being housed and name the warden system warden the head of the counseling department depending on what it is precisely he's complaining about the already evidence on summary judgment that the defendant put in opposition to those grievances is a single affidavit and it's only from one of the that there are certain it would be better he were constantly getting these two or three medications but they were seen doing fear with that that's right your honor and that's the doctors didn't follow him the prescriptions that they wrote the counseling that they prescribe for him as you know seems to improve his condition when he was receiving those prescriptions and the treatment it's rather that the defendants as non medical prison administrators interposed themselves between mr giles and that care both through the transfers his placement into segregation and the rest of that conduct that we've put in our briefing i want to go back to the correct tell me if i'm correct and at least you're relying on the grievances and the fact that your client sent grievances to establish their knowledge that's right that there's no other evidence in the records related to their defendants received to the grievances what's your evidence and if your only evidence of knowledge is the grievances and no evidence that those particular defendants received a grievance how do you create an issue of fact are now detailing his you know his problems with his mental illness and especially to receive treatment and and we're asking you the jury to infer that the defendants here receive that knowledge but that there's there's no way second piece of my response so your honor would simply be that all of that the defendants would have had to do to entitle themselves to summary judgment on this record is put in an affidavit saying i've never heard of this guy i've never seen these  non medical defendants who would not have been exposed to his medical records who would not have dealt with medical issues on a regular basis these other non medical defendant you have to have some evidence clinical services supervisor that just by the fact that their possession they likely saw the grievances and therefore on notice so i think that absent any other evidence in the record which there is none that he had some notion about what the grievance procedures were at these various facilities although i mean it's obviously as if but no although i will note that the grievance procedure was one of the records that mr giles requested and nd a long time ago they would know not know how to run a prison that i assume there would be maybe someone who oversees grievances and that may be a person that discovery and then start digging and maybe line up some more defendants i think that's right your honor that what we would do for this case to be remanded to the district court case undertake the sort of discovery you would ordinarily expect in a federal district the real issue here is simply that because mr giles was pressed say and because he was unable to get the defendants to respond to discovery there's just not really a sufficient record here to answer some of the i think important questions in the there are people who are able to represent them in court on a pro bono basis i think there's two aspects of it first if the case is remanded and nobody raises their hand myself my firm would be happy to represent him in the district  the district court took one more step which is to delay answering summary judgment against on behalf of the defendants until it or tried one more time to try and recruit counsel here given that the record is almost exclusively one more shot would have been would have been foreman infestations this in the process violence that mr giles put in the well and in his initial briefing to this court before pointed counsel took it on the the real issue after you know discussing it with the clients and sort of digging into the record is that mr johnson was being put in segregation under the circumstances we're describing where he's only inconsistently being medicated and why he's not receiving treatment on a regular basis he's being placed in segregation under those circumstances and that appear to be the second half of his stat illinois river which would have been and starting at the end of march of two thousand and one and extending to some point in his state pontiac sometime in e any issue about singur gate in being for his protection as opposed to punish the only indication in the record is that he was placed in segregation because at least for the initial placement and segregation was due to an altercation with decision or not or not both of those decisions i would know would be administrative decisions and not medical decisions and the defendants to point out in their brief and i would touch on it briefly that that there is some indication in the record that there are segregation reviews taking place that sometimes medical staff would determine and they would put something in this medical file and the quote is continued segregation placement is not contradict indicated treating mr giles his signature is not redacted so i just don't know how much emphasis to put on the idea that the defendants want to want to indicate from these two documents that somehow the medical information there is no cure for his condition instead it has to be managed by a combination of medications and therapy that's exactly what charles received from the mental health professionals there were no river pontiac  lawrence for example charles's mental health treatment plan for lawrence is on page three thirty five of the record the mental health staff mark that jails would be provided with individual therapy and we know from patients thirty nine of the record that he was given a consistent did it with the facility or were there different doctors and different people coming up with something that it would seem if someone got prescriptions for certain medication for certain things as i understand the issue with so the court referenced earlier that you know there was some difficulty in his being transferred and as i understand the record transfer summary is supposed to indicate what medications  given at the prior facility that's completed by the medical staff because the initials lpn are next to the person signature on the transfer summary in terms of it being consistent and also as i understand the record the medications are adjusted based on his recording of what particular combination is working for him or not working for him so for example there are times where he has told us in the record where he told mental health professionals that oh i don't like this combination it's aggravating my symptoms and so they would adjust maybe by swapping out one medication instead of another so it's sort of a fluid process as i understand it and that's not an indication that he's being mistreated in any way it's an indication that they're being respons to concerns that he's raising about his treatment there does appear to be some periods of time though where he's not receiving his medications and he should have been yes that's correct your honor so the transfer summary in each case should have listed he's receiving medications so that when he gets to the next facility they'll be restarted with no delay it looks like when he was transferred from dixon illinois river the transfer summary didn't include any psychotropic medications none of them were listed and so there was a period where you know he wasn't receiving medications but as soon as he reported first that he needed those medications he was put back on them so yes they were and those are certainly not ideal but there were times where the transfer summary didn't operate in the way that it should have but that is not that really doesn't have anything to do with these particular defendants that he chose mental health professional that he hadn't received one of the medications her progress notes from a few days later indicate his relief at being back on the medications so there's a question of knowledge and there's no evidence that the department's director or any of the assistant ordinances had awareness of his mental health condition or his concerns about his poor but even for the defendants that arguably were aware the medical records make it very clear that he was properly treated and there's nothing that right your honor on a psychiatrist has to approve a request to be placed at dixon and the record in this case shows that i think it was in early two thousand and fourteen someone did approve of his being transferred there and so he was sent there and your honor was asking so not in all cases because it looks like segregation at one point in one of the facilities he was complaining about a cell me which suggests that he wasn't by himself but it isn't entirely clear kind of what the conditions in segregation were in johnston versus jodi this court ruled that a non medical official cannot be found deliberately interfering simply because he didn't respond to the medical complain prisoner who was being treated by the prison doctor and that's essentially what giles is asking for here he's asking for these non medical defendants to be found there liberally in different because they didn't respond directly to his concerns about his medication but sources ramesh makes clear that a layperson scale you're to tell the medical staff how to do their job is not deliberate interference and given the number of decisions holding that non medical officials generally are not responsible for weighing in on inmate his placement in segregation violates the eighth amendment but that plain overlooks the fact that mental health staff at each facility examined him while he was in segregation and they determined that it was appropriate to house them there that's pages three twenty in three twenty three of the record three twenty five to twenty nine of the record and three fifty one through fifty four of the records there may be others but for search for certain they are there so even if these non medical defendants were aware that jails wanting to be removed from segregation they would have had no basis for overturning the mental health conclusion that it was appropriate to housing and segregation just also suggest that berman in the facility made the conditions inhumane  defined enough rule to put every reasonable prison official on notice that under these circumstances their conduct would be unlawful again he was housed in segregation with the mental health staff knowledge and approval and they were providing him with medications and evaluating his condition throughout under the circumstances defendants would not have known it was unlawful to allow him to remain in segregation on appeal charleston references defendant's quote unquote failure to participate in discovery i spoke with trial counsel and he couldn't independently recall what happened in this case but after reviewing his records counsel reports that he didn't receive any discovery requests from trials aware that counsel has attached them to his appendix on appeal but trial counsel didn't get them to the extent that the defendants were not participating in discovery the time to remedy that issue was before the district court prisoners and also talks about i believe he certain documents were taken from his cell or dixon but none of that is what he's claiming on appeal which is that defendants failed to respond to his requests he shouldn't be allowed on appeals he felt the district court and defendants for an issue that he never raised them regarding the course discretionary decision and it wasn't fundamentally wrong for the court to decide after having made several case depended on non medical defendants knowledge and experience not on any specialized knowledge about his mental health condition or history and it was well within the course discretion to find that they could resolve his claims without expert testimony logical decisions not medical judgments to the extent that they are trying to rely on the medical records to claim that they were they are insulated from liability it's difficult to determine on this record whether they should be allowed to do that because of course there's no indication they ever talked to the doctors that were treating giles in response to his grievances there's no indication they reviewed any medical records there's no indication that they confirmed any of the things that counsel would have you believe from the medical records a and non medical prison official is on notice that they cannot interfere with the treatment of an inmate and that when their conduct does that they can be held liable for deliberate indifference as court held that as long ago as one thousand nine hundred three and on conditions of confinement again in our opening brief we don't know if this is a developing area of law but there are there are cases ruiz's want you know jones al from the western district different to a certain extent facts but certainly establishing more specifically than a council stated segregation just in a certain part of the prison or is it do this if excel assigned unfortunately that's another whole in our record your honor it's not clear what segregation means it's not even clear that segregation means the same thing at different  time and other sorts of activities that inmates in the general population are able to participate and that isn't a segues nicely to just saying that the discovery issue in this case on what is placed in front of the district court in the sense that the district court was put on notice three different times that mr johns was having substantial difficulty navigating the discovery issues without counsel and i will freely admit mr giles attached the discovery request that we attach to our briefing to his brief in this court it's not in the district court record and we as a result point to it but don't rely on it it's simply that the three motions that he brought requesting counsel that are that we focus on for purposes of discovery and since brought up the point of an expert it's absolutely the case that that in order to state a claim here we have to show knowledge on the part of the defendant