nd the court heard in denying qualified immunity and rd the permanent injunction order is overly broad and intrusive and in violation of the prison litigation reform and the party's rule fifty constituted approximately eight hundred paragraphs and your honor but we happened those paragraphs were in dispute oranges object objected to that four hundred of the eight hundred paragraphs were fact where the facts were in dispute and made credibility funding which is not permissible on summary judgment and among the facts that the district court found were one that mr reynolds was in very confinement ignoring the declaration  correction which is not at all true the district court found the only had fifteen minute breaks for lunch and dinner that was not true at numerous instances in the district court's opinion the court referred to social isolation the extreme isolation on and on when in fact for three hours that mr reynolds was socializing with other inmates going to the outside yard going to the day room eating at tables with other inmates playing cards playing cards were the loser of the card game would go down and do push ups and pay pay is pushed this was all observed by dr sat up when he had  population conditions he has t v he is a radio audiobooks he is video game headphones he has all kinds of written material paper materials all kinds of sensory stimulation quite the opposite of what all of the studies on felt very confinement the scientific literature and all that that are all based on people who are in south that have no property no sensory deprivation true isolation none of that exists in the connecticut department correction for special circumstances mr reynolds was not to you mean conditions of confinement he had food clothing shelter he had no plumbing problems to the extent the district court relied on farming  those were all disputed by the defendant it missed the day that he had numerous periodic due process reviews of his classification there were so many numerous disputed issues i would take up all of my ten minutes to describe them to the court there's the district court also heard on the law for example at special append page nineteen the memorandum of decision the district court talks and us the defendants must be aware of facts from which an imprint can be drawn that substantial risk of serious harm and hema also draw the inference we know that dr frayne the person psychologist at northern correction did not draw any inference observed mr reynolds socialising did not turn mr reynolds in any kind of social social isolation or south cary confinement the doctor sat on who is an experience expert had been to the florence a d f the federal bureau of prisons maximum security prison in florence colorado d he'd also toured in it been in the tombs in the special administrative measures cells for housing terrorists i set up knows what solitary confinement is and he concluded that connecticut's condition did not amount to terry confinement with regard to the due process claims in the case you mandatory rules he has no actionable due process claim other prisoners spirit the same deprivation in the ordinary administration of the prison at the time of this case all death row inmates went to death row in all of the death row inmate as an ordinary matter of the administration of death row experience the same conditions there is no constitutional right to go to general population there is no constitutional right to based on the sense of death from the court for a person to be assigned to death through the district court also ordered as a matter of law at page thirty one dollars where the court that it was mr reynolds the original no authority for that proposition and quite frankly there is not your honour's with regard to the qualified immunity argument the district courts generalized and conclusory analysis of qualified immunity cannot be defended under relied on the administration segregation cases your honour's wilkinson in this court decision in cologne versus howard but those two cases are in africa those cases deal with it ministry of segregation ministry material and personal religious volume or book so the district courts conclusion that these were the most restrictive conditions and comparing the conditions here on death row to administrative segregation every reasonable prison official would know that the conditions mr reynolds were in with him was not administrative segregation yet the district court it's crap with from the williams case from the wilkinson case your honor and found that it was clearly established law there is no such law either in the circuit or in the united states supreme court that describe the due process procedures that apply in this case and the  right has to be clear in particular lies in the facts and circumstances of the laughably the permanent injunction order your honor is grossly intrusive overly broad constitutional requirement that mr reynolds be out of his cell more than twenty one hours a day yet the district court found twenty one hours to be a right warning the district court erred in saying that mr re reasonably related to the technique contraband preventing it and so forth so for all those reasons your honor the summary judgment should be bake a bit in the permanent junction order should be vacated in that case either judgment should be direct position on this regard is it is it the position that solitary confinement that if this is only if this is viewed as solitary confinement can it be can it become and i know you dispute that it is but kind of become a potential  amendment violation well that's correct your honor if if for example so we have his story well let me start there and then i'll let you continue of course so we have to sort of that that's  that's the switch that has to get flipped st before we even get to an th amendment analysis i would agree your honor i would say in this case the conditions st of all are quite in dispute so  this is a group of prisoner x who advocate for the abolition of doubt terry can find that this is a hearsay report not based on any admissible evidence that surveys sort of quote yet the records show that reynolds was out of cell for three hours only in cell for twenty one hours now he's out of cell for about four and a half or five hours a day and there's no description of all the amenities taken in favor of the prison officials so we would claim that it was error to find in the very st sentence of the decision that reynolds was in solitary confinement but we're not then as a matter for us to consider this court to consider we don't look at the individual in dishes or that the district court relied on its conclusion that there was solitary confinement whether or not we agree with that term so we don't get to we don't get to go down to the steps that led the court to conclude that it was solitary confinement well the district court simply sort of tracked and took into account this sort of numerical definition and i think that's sort of indicated by the paragraph to the permanent injunction ordered it seems to think to have a draw bright line at twenty one hours because paragraph two of the permanent injunction order your honor says the defense are enjoined from imposing on reynolds the conditions of more than twenty one hours per day alone in itself so i think the district court defined it as any any prison conditions where an individual is in a single  for twenty one hours more protesting but that has no constitutional underpinning it just doesn't make any sense what under the p l r a's remedy can our case in the th circuit there is a trend to believe this psychological evidence that the grass and put forward but our position was that dr grass in methodology and reliability should be different result would have turned well that's part of the problem because it is we have a district judge who seems to read the chairman credibility issues on summary general i understand i'm asking you if it goes back and if there's a trial or there is an evidentiary hearing this is a matter regarding the issuance of an injunction so it would be a trial to court and the judge comes having heard all the evidence live testimony and rebuttal witnesses etc from the state reaches the same conclusion is he wrong still now because after a trial at trial i think a district court judge could make credibility finding right so if you agrees with the expert after a trial and hearing it and puts together the same factors that he has s not in dispute now and of course the state disagrees with that then there's no problem with the injunction right there's still a problem with the injunction because the overly broad but at least it would be based on credibility findings we think that no reasonable fact finder after having this expert cross examined could find could come to the same conclusion we've got i totally understand been there done that before i was on  so let me ask you then what what what is overly broad about it how we coul would you compare it down in order to now assert on my hypothetical assuming that the district court went and found the facts that are in dispute in the way that i've indicated when you and i have agreed then what kind of order get standard that is acceptable i think the only order would be a simple order that says the paragraph four which says that mr reynolds at the file using the same procedures that are used for any other prisoner that would be that that would be the order that he would be classified no differently than in other in may with regard to his seven objective risk factors and seven objective needs factors objective facts are subject and they would classify mr reynolds in a way that's appropriate to both his risks to staff and public safety as well as his mental health needs medical needs education so that now every connecticut is classified  know signed and all right but he missed mr reynolds and others in a similar situation ark making a statement but it's a question aren't now classified correct because the stakes where is that the the state or the facility has no discretion in the matter is that go i understand that correctly there is some discretion in iran are under eighteen can be for example  if if the commissioner determined he was under the section that an individual may need for example protective custody placement under and the special appendix seventy four dollars where the statute is under some and more restrictive level which would be administrative segregation if he was in severe jeopardy of and life in that unit you could be moved to protective custody the statue however is that  that is up to the commissioner and then in two of the the commissioner may also modify for compelling correctional management or safety reasons any condition of confinement but he does have to include the management provisions from a new city which would be monitoring the movement the cell searches changing the cell and so forth so there is some discretion but it's not the full generally class of classified under the general system and i believe he wishes to remain on that single cell he he indicated that when he was interviewed after the injunction and answered ok thank you begin by following up on judge hall's question what i took to be his question which is that assuming that the plaintiffs prevails here in i think you answered as well as a question but i at the risk of repeating it what is it that the district court could have had found in favor of mr re i'm just trying to understand if your view is with respect to the question of or over breast so i'll go through each paragraph to see if i may your honor of the permanent injunction order so paragraph maps in the skate plan and the commissioner determined that high security status was an appropriate classification the commissioner would be enjoined from putting him in that classification even though in his the syrians correctional judgment that is the proper classification so that overly broad and then troops that in paragraph two there is no magic number of hours that in cell out of cell and specially in prevent contagion of the disease so if there was an there's no exception anywhere in the injunction or any kind of an emergency but if there was a lockdown the commissioner would be in violation of paragraph you you would be in helpful so let's go back and the record will reflect that we had a interruption of about a minute i think if if mr reynolds for example a mental health commission determined that there was a significant need for a legitimate mental health reason for m operations it shouldn't just enjoying the enforcement of a king ten big and allow the commissioner to classify mr reynolds and his discretion when the normal classification procedures and i would be surprised if it didn't disagree with that i believe all the indications on the record is that mr reynolds was you know can be managed in pop in general population and that he could be a good candidate for general population but the court shouldn't tell the commissioner for example in paragraph five that he should be housing conditions similar to the abdo and johnson we know that they go in johnson they have double cells there in one particular facility in order all let me go back because in a way some of these questions go back to procedure let me ask you about the proceedings before the district judge we to describe in short form walker exactly took place legal clinic and they were eminently prepared each one of them took one of five or six issues and we argued cross motions for summary judgment before volumes of joint dependencies we tried to put in all the various moving in opposing papers and rule fifty six statements so it was all in the papers was all in the papers but the papers must have spoken in we didn't know that there was one that was available i guess what you would my put it is that if you didn't know that one of them would be needed or the coast because you thought that there were no material issues of fact that were in the spirit was that your position telkom to they argument are novel and essentially sui generis there there's no case anywhere in the country that had the convoluted history of the legislation regarding the death penalty and then the judicial sort of abolition of the death penalty in two thousand and fifteen when basically santiago and that came down and then how do implement prison procedures when they never thought that th as a sort of a transition or step down and then eventually allow him to choose a cell mate and that eventually he would get  burns declaration is enjoying the pen dix twenty to forty nine this is part of the proceedings after the injunction entered the injunction was in august and his declaration is september twenty five but burns wanted to have a transition that was sustainable for mr reynolds such that he could adjust and as you as your honour's can imagine you know being in the single  transition to general population if appropriate for individuals currently in special circumstances so the thought was to give him either six months or nine months and he wanted to interview him and conduct some sort of mental health the court at age two thousand two hundred and fifty two of the record the plan includes after six months mr reynolds would be offered to have continuing mental health sessions they offered him mental health so they had a plan in the in the event that the your honour's court did not enter a stay but to stay entered and so everything was put on hold that was entered by a three yes and that stays in effect to let me go into the record again would you just describe for us very briefly what what what is described hit the special day ministration of that unit is so your honor it's a it's not a whole housing unit the housing unit has about fifty cells and there's only ten inmates who has modern heating ventilation in fact today is being used to isolate the positive coke ations because the ventilation system the similar to negative pressure rooms all the air is circulated out of the building but it does have solid concrete walls concrete floors it has a large day room so when the special circumstances inmates are out because of the statu in the middle of the of the unit there are stainless steel tables with stools and he had in de room recreation for an hour right now it's an hour and a half in the morning an hour and a half in the afternoon they go out to a rec yard for an hour and all of those activities are available for all the special circumstances inmates so as many as eight or nine inmates  exercise in outdoor recreation that is involved more than one person that's correct around three times a week they go to the gymnasium they have gymnasium wreck and they go together six leave what is the record show the record shows that they go out in groups and they've been going out in groups since twenty the last four or five years at least tw sixteen i believe and when you say groups how many people are we talking about we're talking about right today as many as six or eight at the time i believe at one time they went out to group reynolds never complained about it and they had no work orders so that was in the papers but it was a fact in dispute that was the only question about quote unquote shelter but there's no complaint mr reynolds complained about  confinement is often used with some degree of ambiguity is it your view that that whatever the status is under the current regime is different from means no human contact no communication with others no property in the williams case when the rd circuit says no property no radios no television no telephone calls dr set up and that's why he stated in the declaration them in this report that this is not felt very confined solitary confinement arguably if they come out of their cells there's no contact with any other inmate they're the only one out there out by themselves the general assembly of connecticut and they were very specific references to their rentals in the course of the legislative legislat legislative record by itself is insufficient evidence for classifying a statute as a bill of attainder statements by a smattering of legislators do not constitute the steak little evidence of p tent so it's not a bill of attainder because mr reynolds firstly was convicted by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt so he did have the safeguards of the judicial trial the supreme court for example and love it said that it would be punishment of an individual without a judicial trial that was government employees that couldn't work for the government and the legislation punish them by taking away their livelihood because they were suspected of being that the defendants now state that those who were sins confined in the special circumstances unit are allowed out of this for four d and a half hours per day was that a matter of record to begin with or or is that or is that a new development that we can take we can become aware of you if it is in the record in connection with th eight and in the warden's declaration in connection with the state proceedings the warden immediately want the injunction ordered at the half an hour recreation time to each recreation period so the easiest thing for the building to do was instead of an hour brechin an hour break they had an hour and a half and then hour and a half that would three hours and then two happy hours for lunch w and i think today it's even more sort of normative towards general population i believe they've offered religious programming groups they've offered a life for a group i don't know whether any of that is in the record but that then the warden declaration that additional group programming was being offered in her declaration since he had four and a half hours and in part because we didn't know if the stay was going to enter and one of the paragraphs said he could not be in the cell for more than twenty one hours so in an effort to comply with the injunction while at the same time moving the commissioner in the warden had some out of cell time friends we're in a position to make decisions about changes in the conditions of and of confinement of reynolds i suppose a step might have some relevance to the issue of  started it has to make decisions about rentals conditions of confinement i believe it does your honor from two thousand and ten so about two thousand and sixteen or seventeen there was a restraint the other issue and so prior to the last four years individuals were in fact recreating by themselves one at the time and when they went from their cell to the recreation area they were in handcuffs so that the warden had discretion for example  thirty seven dollars from the deputy commissioner then deputy commissioner mark strange to brian murphy talking about various conditions and incident in the history of  judge underhill decided we'd have one reynolds case with all of the conditions but this as the case went to summary judgment and now on appeal reynolds is this the bowing in the claim for money damages except for the issue of due process and not getting periodic due process hearing the district court decision that talks about twenty three years the plaintiff only the injunctive relief so all the past history and in the defendant's view your honor is really not relevant or material because they were only moving for an injunction as to what was the imminent injury as of the date the case was argued in april of two thousand and nineteen and by two april th seen those restraint policies had long been the bandon and people were recreating together in groups and that's what claims i'm mindful of the late of the hour your honor but i'm going to take you up on your invitation to provide at least some framing for these issues and then i will turn to some things which i think i can clarify about the record is poignant to argue constitutional claims based on social isolation in the extraordinary circumstances that bring us together on the telephone rather than in a courtroom this week the th social distancing have taught us not only the physical and mental health challenges of isolation but the value of human contact and that's exactly what this case is about this case is about the deprivation of human mr reynolds has lived alone in a concrete twelve foot by seven foot cell in segregated housing at northern the only maximum level five prison in connecticut for over twenty four years it is an institution that affords no interior natural light or direct fresh air and is constructed of concrete forged deal and reflective glass under defendant's policies mr reynolds will never touch a friend or loved one and will have minimal opportunity for social interaction meaningful environmental stimulation or occupation for the rest of his life in tw after twelve years without a single disciplinary infraction defendant's place mr reynolds in a high security restraint he continued to live eat and recreate alone but every time he left his cell for seven years he was strip searched and placed in restraints although administrative directive nine four requires notice and regular review of that status mr reynolds had neither and your honor with respect to the two different actions i just wanted to clear up the procedural history for a moment if i might there was an initial motion for summary judgment brought by defendants before i was the counsel in this case in march of two thousand and fifteen that's in the district court record it forty two at that point mr reynolds had been living alone eating alone recreating alone for a long time and in the defendant the case was ripe for summary judgment there were no disputed facts at that point according to the defendant's then i became involved they graciously agreed to suspend the motion for summary judgment until penalty claim that he had which would have avoided place but in special circumstances that did not work out there was then a motion to correct his illegal sentence as soon as that happened we amended the complaint that's  seventy one dollars in the district court file and it was at that point that we recognize there was another action the so called restraint case which deals with the period i just described from two thousand and ten to two thousand and seventeen a little bit further down the line after we've done some discovery but not full discovery the other case popped up for trial i agreed to get involved we did not think it made sense to try a subset of the case at that point so we agreed to fold the pleadings from that case into the larger case and that's how we have both of those cases before you today there were cross motions for summary judgment in this case the defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law on all claims not just on qualified immunity mr reynolds moved for partial summary judgment he moved for injun fact there is a long joint statement of undisputed fact that was largely taken from the earlier sober judgment motions filed by the defendant in two thousand and seventeen mr reynolds was respond to life relying on defendant's pleadings the district court found that other than limited recreation time professional or legal visit and short increment of time to eat or shower mr reynolds would spend the remainder of his life alone in a small cell there were no further changes to his schedule and till the day after the junction for the pleadings that were filed in connection for the motion for stay with the very st time that anyone was alerted to the possibility that there would be more out of cell time dr satz hof had done his tour and issued his report a year earlier and during his deposition had said the conditions were evolving but they evolved not one bit in that year every change that has been made to mr reynolds conditions of confinement has been made during this litigation and in response i would submit to certain activity in the litigation retrospective punishment life without possibility of parole in mandated and permanent social isolation there explicitly have been victims and punitive motivation and the complete unconstitutional bill of attainder there was no question that mr reynolds and the others on death row were specifically targeted they were identified as people who had committed a capital felony prior to april t developed by the supreme court to determine if a statute is punitive the motivational test look to the legislative history and while it is sometimes the case that there is conflicting legislative history or confusing legislative late of history it could not have been more clear in this case every single legislator who talked about the proposed amendment talked in terms of its ability to punish and talked quite specifically about the people whom they wanted to punish it also meets the requirements as we discussed in our brief of the functional test in the historical test of course it's not necessary to have to meet every conviction seventeen years before judge underhill properly rejected that rationale it could simply not be the case that a trial seventeen years earlier is some sort of review prior to the legislative in imposition of punishment and that's all of they for the moment about bill of attainder i'd like to turn to the due process claim as i've mentioned before there are two but i'm only going to focus now on the permanent injunction which is aimed at mr reynolds current conditions and of course those are in special circumstances status so defendants have imposed a permanent unit decision and entered a permanent injunction mr reynolds had lived for over twenty four years in segregated housing at northern where he was deprived of almost any environmental or sensory stimuli and limitations no more than two hours of recreation per day no contact visits with family no work assignments outside the housing unit isolation from anyone who is not on special circumstances data which means at this point mr reynolds has the possibility of talking to eight other people as was briefed at the district court level that called as one of those people he has not come out of his cell in years dr gone you testified during his deposition that there were two people being maintained on psychiatric medication that were part of that you know that the supreme court announced to send inverses connor and further explained in wilkinson versus often that confinement in conditions of extreme social isolation implicate a liberty interest that requires due process under the th amendment standin teaches that analysis does not turn on the mandatory or discretionary language of prison regulations rather the touchstone of the analysis is whether conditions of confinement imposed on a typical significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of life prison life this court has emphasized that duration of confinement is the central consideration st in well and then in palmer versus richard and announce the confinement of three hundred and five dollars days in segregated housing is definitively atypical and that the cologne versus howard event cologne versus howard the circuit has held the line at the three hundred and five mr reynolds had been segregated housing for more than two thousand five hundred days when the injunction entered that confinement is not only indefinite a factor the wilkinson court emphasized it is permanent this court is also repeatedly held that the ordinary and students of prison life require comparison to people held in general population again that's welsh and palmer the affidavits of edwardes on tiago and carrie johnson document that general population prisoners in connecticut even those who were once sentenced to death have many more opportunities to interact with each other they have regular access to natural light and open air outdoor activities programming employment intramural sports and the opportunity for more frequent and extended family visit where contact is permitted with respect to the do the process that is due i would refer the court to the relatively recent decision in almighty supreme borne a law where judge lynch looked at actually administrative segregation in northern and it found that a practice that the dio see where they took someone who'd been in the ad was released to the general public and came back into the institution and he was looking at whether that implicated the liberty and the court there held that it did and noted specifically that there had been no individualized your specific finding of risk but there had been no real determination of individualized assessment that had was appropriate and concluded that deference did not relieve officials from the requirements of due process or permit them  impose restrictive measures that are not reasonably related to legitimate government purposes there's absolutely no evidence in this record that mr reynolds is anything other than a doctor sap refer him a model and defendant after defendant identified him as somebody they could manage safely and general population mr reynolds was also alleged and judge underhill found that there was an th amendment violation that the conditions specifically at northern that he had been subjected to affix dream social isolation in fact violated the cruel and unusual punishment  the th amendment the reason given and the reason that was accepted was that the confinement it poses a substantial risk of serious harm to his future physical and mental health that is well supported and in fact has been noted by the supreme court of the united states this court and several circuit court it is based on scientific literature and professionals across disciplines that refute now documented by an overwhelming body of scientific literature the conditions are inhumane degrading and violate contemporary standards of decency they do that because the very fact of isolation the deprivation of fresh air the deprivation of natural sunlight the isolation from all but if you human being has been demonstrated by medical researchers by smoke so she ologist by psychologist now for decades you cause serious physical and mental harm the recent neuro science research which is contained in the new book solitary that cited in our broom does an excellent job of updating the court on what the most recent thinking is but this goes back to dr gravity in the original article in one thousand nine hundred and eighty three this is new finding this is a finding that people have confirmed over and over again through the decades and it is not research based solely on prison isolation it is isolation and different cont including astronauts including prisoners of war there are not only a scientific literature and an extensive amount of that there has been great deal of public awareness as these caused by objection to the very conditions that mr reynolds has been suffering and without your honors i'm happy to address any questions thank you very much just  question the statement i jotted down a phrase you used quote alone in his cell everything i heard from mr straw which i that he was resting on material in the record suggested that he has not been spending time alone in his cell my wrong about that was your honor a well i have disagreements with mr strong about the status of the record specific plea there are extensive affidavit from my client which have not been refuted that were submitted in the port of summary judgment both of which are in the joint appendix that document very specifically what the conditions of his confinement were at different times from week at a certain point he was a low for another hour in the day room ate all of his meals and his cell that continued from nine hundred and ninety nine up through twenty  sixteen the defendant added and this is all spelled out in great detail in his affidavit at a two hundred and fifteen minute meal increment a couple of months later the two hours in a gymnasium for the st time he was allowed to recreate with other people st in the outdoor area off of the housing unit they had had separate rec yard constructed within the one relatively small concrete and steel mesh yard they put up barriers they then took down one of the those barriers so two or three people could be in those places together and then ninety eight dollars to six dollars o nine and it spells out all of this at the time of oral argument on the summary judgment at the time and and so it is quite specific about exactly when those changes are made at the time of the permit injunction he had four hours of outdoor recreation in the rec yard  twenty one hour periods in the gymnasium so he had a total of six hours but in getting the gym the last rd of the fresh air that he had had up until that point and he had another hour out in the day room with whoever wanted to come out from special circumstances my understanding is that was usually or five people and that was what he had it wasn't until the day after the injunction when according to the warden was gonna actually file to declarations one was in connection with the motion for a temporary stay at the district court level where she said she'd given the half hour the mr strong referred to and justice and she offered contact to mr reynolds with this family nine months later that had never happened when they moved her stay pending appeal a couple of weeks later she filed another declaration and that's where the chart was attached that had a description of additional out of cell time and programming as this court mentioned that is outside the record it is not properly something before the court those facts are disputed and should not be considered in  valuating was the district court was correct in entering the permanent injunction as i mentioned before the defendant had well over a year to make any of those changes the nothing was done until the permanent injunction entered in this case mate is that something that the record suggests agreeable to him your honor mr strong gave you a very specific cite to dr burns's declaration which i commend to your attention i believe that the joint appendix two thousand two hundred and forty nine and it's a very thoughtful document that talks about the steps they intend to take which includes that they were going to put him in a single cell for at least six months and they were going to monitor his transition because after being alone in a cell for twenty four years they were concerned which in and of itself speaks to the conditions in which they ha been finding him but put that to the side there definitely from talking to experts who do the trend from talking to dr grassley and who looked at that plan he said it was a good start but we would certainly want to talk to the defendants about what their plan was but i understand that eventually and he understands that a bench really it is highly likely that he will be do you thank you attorney dignam indicate that there is no fresh air but then she said he's out in the rec yard for four hours with regard to your specific question your honor whether or not he was alone in the cell yes he's alone in program but chaplain proposed the religious services program for in the unit now the statute eight hundred and ten dollars b limits recreation to two hours but there are no limitations on  programs that can be offered in the housing is so when the the chaplain went to mr reynolds and said we're proposing over a religious multi denominational religious studies group or whatever  the when dr frayne offered mental health groups mr reynolds declined so there were additional opportunities the statute says two hours of recreation there were attempts to evolve the  because that was the case where when the vendor was in the gang it was classified to a security risk group a discharge plan cuts because the senate then did he want out because the community and when he came back and they put him right back into the gang program and the court found that that was a due process violation for two reasons he didn't get a hearing but also because the at the time when he came back and he was not on sentence pretrial detainee the if that case stands for anything it stands for the proposition that these due process questions are complex and we know from matthew's verses elbridge due process is a flexible concept and it's very very difficult to understand what type of due process applies in which situations the defendants respectfully claim that mr reynolds was not in this extreme social  deprivation he had multiple multiple professional visits from attorneys with all kinds of litigation whenever he went to see is attorney he was not in restraints and quite frankly all of that prior history about being in restraints in the restraint policy is not relevant because this the plaintiffs did not move for a money damages based on being in restraints for five or seven years the point this move solely for an injunction which should consider what the conditions were on the day of the hearing because injunction deals with in the media irreparable injury at the time so the district court erred in the very st paragraph of the st sentence twenty three years in solitary confinement the twenty three years was not correct and there was no reason to consider that the the district court should have considered the affidavit for example greg captain roadways which made it clear that he was went to recreation with other inmates played cards with other inmates had meals with other inmates and all of those were the conditions that his repeated pleas you have one more minute thank you really the district court made all kinds of credibility findings and found facts not in favor of the defendants when they clear on the summary judgment record any dispute at the facts and any doubt as in the facts should have been considered in the light decision should be vacated as well as the permanent injunction order thank you for your patience for this long argument thank you