risk of violence at the hands of other in names during the facts viewing the facts in a light most of that benefits rumors rumors could not be verified starting off and as well as his commanding officer captain walker informed the black and they are the leaders of the glass disruptive groups one of which was m establish two other people that would eventually look at the file that in fact there was a threat against this particular inmate in this case however it appears that of all  facility who might retaliate against him but if he's an administrative segregation as you describe it is not because the prison authorities thought that he feared retaliation he's an abstract because they didn't like what he did during the ri that mr mr lyons had actually encouraged attacks on staff at that time how long a period was in administrative segregation before the prison actually encouraged participation in the riot but prison officials not only kept them in administrative segregation they initially response assigned him to a walk along yard for his own protection representation the first month of his housing in administrative segregation was for protective purposes yes but it wasn't stated in this file that that's why it was done actually the initial one fifteen or the initial  really about this case is that as i understand what happened in the court below the claim that survives at least at this point against mr bassman is not for compensatory damages but merely for nominal damages  because at least as i understand what happened below there's been a determination that there's no causal relation between botham's action and action and the injuries eventually suffered and my understanding the record correctly  information to the black inmates but he didn't enter any record of that into any kind of documentary file that would flow with mr elian's throughout his continued presence there is that correct court right ok so now and your position is he didn't have to do anything put any entry like that into the file because for two reasons first of all he interviewer says i interviewed sergeant bachman regarding the charges and he stated that on the morning of september twenty seventh one thousand nine hundred sixty interviewed several black and hispanic inmates they assured him there were no problems between black and hispanic population i assume that that's a question of whether knew that there was going to be this riot is that correct there that's fine and then says he had no other relevant information to provide in this matter now was there any inquiries anything in the record to indicate whether the investigator asked bachmann about potential  run over the time but let's hear from you in response whether mr lyons suffered an actionable injury under the constitution that allows him to recover damages in this case and the second is whether officer patent is entitled to qualified immunity the answer to both of those questions i but then later for that because he'd been a victim and then for his protection later what requirement was that the officer had to document what was happening him to document the risk he could've taken other steps for example suggesting that there be a full inquiry into any possible threats there's no evidence that he did anything in response and this court system in court has been very clear that once an that was not the appropriate forum for him to raise that knowledge but it doesn't get rid of the requirement that once he knows of a substantial risk to mr lyons he has he had to take preventative measures to prevent any harm  particular inquiry but it doesn't so what you're saying the duty comes from something else yeah the duty does not come from the fact that he was being interviewed in a particular situation and they have provided the perfect form for him to have raised th but he still had to take preventive measures in some way what do you do with what i think is the holding by lowell that there's no causal relation between officer bob and then in action and the view is that there is no evidence to support a constitutional injury here and this court has the jurisdiction to say as a legal matter there is no constitutional injury in this case  whether it with this court does not have jurisdiction to consider is whether the district court view the facts in the way in which the district court viewed the fact that the district court found sufficient facts and there is number one and a reasonable officer and sergeant botham's position or should have known that this danger was likely to eventuate and that he had an affirmative obligation to do what he could to make what is your answer to the argument but given the view was already in administrative segregation that was protecting him why was it not reasonable for officer bachmann to think of the problem had been taken care of in in its files to prevent future occurrence of harm they have to document their own enemies they have to document situations where threat rises and so the fact that mr lines may be temporarily protected from it found that a reasonable prison official even though he understood the risks he couldn't know all of the all that asked but mistakenly and reasonably perceive that the created the risk because it was bomber who originally goes to lions and says hey there are no problem the mexicans are not going to attack your guys lie and relies on this tells us guys you're ok in the attack immediately follows so it's lions who produces the riot or rather who produces the day it doesn't because the right reproduces the danger alliance has that produced any particular duty on the part of bachmann who's been a cause for a lion himself being a particular danger to make sure that he understand the acute danger here