immunity where they deprived natalee their size for six hundred ten days now during a substantial period of this six hundred ten days appellant submitted evidence affirmative evidence in connection with the summary judgment motion that he was continually confined to his cell essentially twenty four hours a day with the exception of three times a week when he was able to take a shower why was he so confined well he's fine because there's also a dispute in the record about th rules regulations whatever you want to call them that says a person on c status here's the way we deal with it exactly and the individuals you're trying to hold responsible in this case were simply following those rules and regulations related to a person on sea status that's correct what you're doing is complaining about cease that is well there's actually two separate issues trying to explain first there's the issue about the policy operational procedure number eleven which basically starts forth that sea status inmates won't have any access to the are you see the problem here is you're trying to sue individuals or an individual right correct and this is an individual following the sea status rules and so i don't see how you can argue that a reasonable person in that person's position would have understood that this that sea status rules was a constitutional violation i mean this is exactly what qualified immunity is all about i understand the second point that i'd like to make is that if that is the case indeed that they're just following the policy there's an evidence in the record that they were aware that he was also being denied which was not part of the sea status policy out of cell activity there's two issues going on one is that  essentially that they will not have the inmates will not have outdoor x their size but they will have seven to ten hours of out of selling to vittie well the record indicates and connection with the motion for summary judgment the appellant presented eviden you would think that cooler heads would prevail over a year before you ever been in one of these prisons and seen how these gangs deal with each other i actually have been in prison not myself but i have been to us so you understand how these things they don't and  understand that baghdad but assuming even if that is true your honor assuming even if that is true under the under the authority in spain and i believe the ten points out is a two hundred it basically says ok there's a legitimate security concern but then they went to they file the writ of pay vs with the monterey superior court the monterey superior court reviewed the petition and issued an order to show cause when the order to show cause was issued the  pelleas changed the changed operational procedure number eleven and ended up providing the c status inmates i believe exercise three hours a week outside outdoor exercise great three hours of outdoor the status policy as you pointed out perhaps if they're just following or enforcing a policy from talk down there may not be an issue there however there could be an issue with the warden regarding supervisory liability but putting those issues a i think what is more interesting is when you look at the totality of the circumstances given that the appellant presented affirmative evidence about the conditions of his confinement in the district court seem to ignore that and i draw your attention to the first level appeal when you see here it is  due to modified program and being self that so here's the recognition and this is dated may twenty second the prison riot happened i believe in mid november here's a recognition that basically six months later they're still not getting exercise they're still being s they're not getting any time to walk to the dining halls so i wonder these facts and i think under the cases have shown spain lopez allen that any deprivation longer than six weeks under circumstances judgment case yeah but you don't have any evidence at all to generate a genuine issue of material fact on the subject of promise a problem that i have with the record well i would disagree with that i think if the risk is obvious versus the cause and cases in that line of authority all seem to deal with much more agree just types of situations that such that the the object of component itself would give rise to an inference that might support a finding on the subjective component but here we've got an inmate who walks in and says i don't want to participate in certain programs i'm willing to accept the status goes on c status which is a policy within the prison it's a matter of which you know recognize gets litigated there's disputes about what it means and its breadth and so forth there's a modification of the policy in those circumstances can we really say that the there's the this record supports even the existence of the material factual  actual exercise yard furthermore that case has been and psychiatry try to apply that analogy that you know hey you're the master of your own fate and the court basically rejected it and then finally i would point component of the test the evidence only shows that defendants were liable for a denial of yard for thirty days to mr moore after thirty days when he was placed on c status after thirty days he could request a modification of his classification and if that were granted he could go back to yard so after that first thirty days all of the power about whether mr moore got yard was within his hands on the second prong on the subject of components of the met again because mr moore had control over whether he got outdoor exercise defendants vested him with that control and because his conditions of confinement were not harsh and finally defendants are entitle to qualified immunity because most of the cases dealing with denial of yard time have addressed the the issue in terms of a a long term denial of yard time coupled with very harsh conditions of confinement minister moore was on c status between june and when the right happened in november he got considerable out of cell time he was allowed to go to the day room he was allowed to leave the cell for showers he got to walk across the yard for meals and he had opportunities for education and testing which i i don't know he took advantage of those interviews medical appointments and the substantial library time that he needed to pursue his litigation in addition he was not isolated from other inmates there's no evidence that he was existing that he was living in an atmosphere of fear or apprehension or that his conditions of confinement were particularly degrading and he was offered programs of education and rehabilitation which he refused and all he had to do to alleviate these conditions of his confinement where he wasn't getting to yard was to again the rules and  reclassification during the period of time the initial period of time between june and november he never filed a six o two never filing imake grievance about those conditions that he was under at that time so i think that's pretty clear evidence that he didn't object to that that portion of his confinement i think where where he has the problem is after the november riot and  gardener said that in order to satisfy the subjective component in the eighth amendment test a plaintiff must produce evidence showing that defendant's actions were both unnecessary and wanton and then later that year and a riot the proper inquiry is whether the actions were taken into good faith effort to restore and maintain discipline or maliciously in sadistically for the purpose of causing harm now i know in mr moore's reply brief that he makes an unsupported assertion that the lockdown was simply a pretext to keep him confined but there's no evidence to suggest that if ends lock down hundreds of inmates just to target mr cell activity now a six month a year and a half on a modified program following a prison riot is not extraordinary and there is no evidence to suggest that it is so i would say that if we're ability to get to yard after thirty days and he didn't take it after the riot defendants were justified in placing the facility on lockdown now if you go to their investigations and did what they needed to do to ensure institutional safety and security there's no evidence that they imposed the lockdown because they were being malicious or intending to cause mr more harm and if there are no questions no