one man without giving carlos castro any opportunity discuss the evidence against him transform mr castro sentence of fifteen years to life into a sense of life without the possibility of p and while the repercussions for this case are profound for mr castro the issues are actually quite simple this court has had this case before and renamed it to the district court with two simple issues first which officials actually make the decision to confine prisoners to administrative segregation at security housing unit and second whether castro in fact receiving meaningful opportunity to present his views to those ind without answering either of these two questions the district court granted summary judgment against mr ca moreover there were disputed issues of material fact as to both questions and in fact there is no evidence in the record that mr castro had a meaningful opportunity to present his views to the institutional gang investigator looking at the that there was any meeting in the office next to consolidate is in the room next to consult his office so when the district court said that this was carefully worded to apparently avoid saying that there was no meeting generally again that's shifting the burden of proof because the burden is on defendants and moved in a motion for summary judgment to prove that there was a meeting and the only meeting they alleged to have taken place castor specifically refute it so the questions of fact is your argument it's a question of fact exactly which would prevent summary judge would prevent summary judgment so even if yalit is the critical decision maker and again i think it's important to note there's no finding that he actually made the decision this at all i had any authority to make the confinement decision according ever found that sergeant allen actually made the decision and in fact the only evidence on this issue is mr castro's i'm contradicting declaration mr castro says that sergeant allen had no authority to make the decision and it was in fact within it can solace who made the decision so at a minimum that's a disputed fact but in fact that's the only evidence because i never said he made the decision he said he investigated i alan ever said he had the the district court found that the investigator who collects the evidence and prepares the game validation package is the decision maker in the lower court went on to find that in this instance castro's investigator was mr i all i all of was there every critical stage every juncture of castro's validation to begin with i all made the decision to pull castro out of the general population and into administrative segregation because he was uncertain as to ca every page of the thing how the package but the actions of both parties here can knowledge that i all of was the primary decision maker here the department of corrections when investigating the administrative grievance of castro proceeding in this appeal and i all but written in the first person with statements like i perform investigation i went through the cell and i collected this correspondence indicating hand in hand written rejoinders attached the complaint and declaration kashrut point gonzales that's correct he can never head on say he never had the chance to talk to i although so instead he did tends to diminish the authority of iowa by calling him a mere underling of his supervisor we do not contend that they all is the highest ranking i always had these responsibilities assert and feel clearly in this matter all of was the primary the critical decision maker in the segregation decision and that he gave castro an uncontested opportunity to be heard while the investigation was directly disputed but i all i was the only one who would have been at those i c c meetings no one contends that gonzales was present there and castro directly contends i was the surgeons that he was there but i all but castro never contends that he never had the chance to the declarations that's not in the evidence but is not up to effect trying to determine how can you do that how can you make that kind of a conclusion on the summary judgment motion if the undisputed evidence in the declarations which the district court found to be carefully worded he never directly says i never talk to  you might want to comment directly on that last exchange yes your honor and i would like to do that the point really is that i jala never says generally i met with mr castro h e says specifically i met with mr castro with mr gonzales present he alleges one specific meeting and mr castro very clearly says that meeting didn't occur i never met with consult us and it was defendants who placed into the record whether in the declaration or in their brief that the meeting occurred in the office so there is no meeting that allegedly occurred that he didn't dispute occurred and so the only other point solace the court never made a finding that the opportunity to present his views was meaningful and this is the fundamental element of due process as this court recognized in his remained order citing  so to simply say that a meeting occurred that he had a chance to present his views does not answer the question as to whether in meaningful opportunity occurred and in fact there's there's no finding that that was meaningful and there's no evidence it was in the meaningful and ca undisputed evidence is that he wasn't given a chance to talk about any of the evidence being used to validate and i submit that is not possible to have a meaningful opportunity to dispute the charges if you're not told anything more than we believe you are a periodic lee or regularly involved with somebody else who is periodic only or regularly involved with somebody else who's a gang member if that was told to anyone there's no way to meaningfully dispute that there's no way to as the court in the with the mcdaniel said marshal the evidence against those charge to be able to marshal evidence against the charges you have to know what the basis for the charges is in the something in this case there was a confidential memorandum but he wasn't told that if he had been told that he could have said oh from the same person who was discredited by sworn testimony from prison officials in one thousand nine hundred one and perhaps that would have swayed i g i gonzales or he could have been told that there was a postcard from mr breckon montane he could have said that's not the same back i'm on to you think it is that somebody who's been paroled he counsel the clock is frozen at the time you originally had but i think you've probably consumed by now but in any event thank you counsel the case just argued will be submitted for decision and we will hear argument wind versus lovelock correctional center