summarily dismissed the due process claim based on a narrow view of section one hundred eighty three that has been overturned by subsequent controlling authority i'll discuss each of these two points in turn first on the eighth amendment claim against the murky defendants  brownlee presented competent evidence to support summary judgment that created a material factual dispute about what happened in the rotunda that day mr brownlee presented evidence that he did not resist and the undisputed evidence shows that he was alone in the he was the only just made in the rotunda facing five corrections officers and that he had taken no aggressive steps to provoke the officers and most he had told the officers that what they had done in an incident that had already was returning to normal mr brownlee was the owner was the only inmate in the room and the aggressive conduct by the corrections officers in this case simply was not justified by any conduct of mr brownlee on the facts as mr brownlee has presented them segregation there's nothing on the face of that complaint that implicates the duration of his confinement your your pre canceled that that all he was seeking was damages and he wasn't seeking to to change the terms of his confinement but that seems to me to be to be irrelevant if the seeking would necessarily require the restoration of good time credits and that that would affect the duration of the sentiment you've answered a little different question you answer that would necessarily require the restoration of good time credits and my concern is a little different and that is that in order for your client to prevail we are going to have to conclude that the prison officials acted unconstitutionally when they deprived him of his good time credits but that will necessarily implicate the validity of the deprivation of good time  credits i think your point your honor and that and the heck doctrine doesn't require looking at more than just the money relief sought in the complaint the point of the point that i was trying to make is a preliminary one that you know because of the stage which the due process claim was resolved it's not clear exactly what happened in the hearing and you know whether mr brownlee was deprived of good time credits that in fact extend the length of his sentence and i say that because mr brown is in prison for concern raised in the in hack and edwards in the case in the cases that follow them that the exhaustion and other procedural requirements of haiti's could be circumvented simply wouldn't be implicated in how can your client recover that that result obtained by wrongfully depriving him of the opportunity to call witnesses and by allowing a biased decision maker to to participate so now we don't have the benefit of a whole are those matters that could be challenged in hideous if your hon you heard the colloquy between judge bybee and mr j did anything you heard there to do any of that change your mind i wanted to add that you know our view that there was conviction to be overturned one of the complaints was that they didn't overturn it when they should have what is your perspective on mr jay's argument that the boundary between that what they did was wrong in the wake of two of the defendants having been involved in a violent fight with two other inmates yeah in addition these comments were made by mr brownlee in front of thirty to brownlee says you are wrong also while this is going on there are thirty four inmates thirty or forty other inmates on the other side of the door who are excited who are yelling the reasonable perception of the officers  that their actions in lifting her leg were temporary tempered in what way you got all these other people behind the jail door yeah there might have been some yelling and so on but the reality is i got four people conduct of the prison guards in the midst of the manual i'm sorry should it be in the manual this is the appropriate way is it that if anybody starts yelling and she just take him against the wall you lift their leg up and you hurt their back again your honor the fact have to be placed in this situation of what the officers pursued in this situation there were multiple things happening the fact that there  was an altercation a fight between correctional officers and two other inmates that ad that was being resolved that mr brownlee who was seated got up off the floor he's in close proximity to those officers at the same time there were thirty or forty other inmates who were galvanized by the event now that you are the person that was sitting there so let's say you were the person that was sitting there and you said you're doing the wrong thing  that's wrong and if they did to you what they did to him would that be ok if i was in prison you wouldn't be of course but and if you were to your trained lawyer saying you know you're here their body knows you're a lawyer needs to be looked at in through the eyes of a reasonable correctional officer that that what would seem appropriate to you or i if we were in that situation would be in a crew different context undisputed facts provide the basis for determining the reasonableness of the officers perception of that situation and how they reacted to that situation that would not necessarily be a jury question that it's a question of law in terms of a brief resolves this was the facts of someone who was confined administrative segregation that was the only that was the principal outcome of his disciplinary hearing and this court said that he could challenge that in a section eighty three action did not have to  brownlee's version of the facts the officer taking the position that if anybody criticizes you you you you are subject to whatever whatever level of force the officers knew were procrit in this case that involved bending mr brownlee's leg up behind him as high