it was but he didn't it seems a very big security reason well i'm trying to find out your position then is is that we should or maybe just back to the district court to ferret out if there is or is not  requirement as a matter of procedure that some of the strip search without having any contact which would bring in the requirement for such a strip search right so this is a question that is the policy that regardless of whether there's an option to  that this was nothing more than they didn't get around to but i think that in this case the delay is so extreme that it would be unreasonable to say that it was just they didn't get around to i mean he received physical therapy three times over three abreast of a month stretch and i think in this case the fact that the fact that he didn't receive under the court has recognized a limited fourth amendment right which is not a black or white test but it's a test that it's a balancing test your knowledge that the quote that the president has a and recognize that there that institutions have had a security interests in not only preventing inmates from obtaining contraband which is anything that are not supposed to have but if some cases in other circuits that show home that you know that there may be a fourth amendment violation when an inmate has no possible opportunity because they were under constant least i can't speak to every eight hour shift however the in quezon only whether he could have been provided he was provided contraband by somebody to state that you know you're the state nearly implement the security policies you get somebody in isolation there may be a random prison visitor from medical care there's no record here that that that existed but you have this policy no matter what we're going to strip search of every eight hours and i mean this assuming his claims properly before the court you have raised that it wasn't support your position that during every eight hour period at which he was strip searched that the prior eight hours he had contact with someone in the from the outside world from prison personnel such that he could have been somebody can create some created dangerous instruments out of a piece of plumbing that may be in the back with torah that's correct i read it the spring ended in the mattress ok is that's on th security interests with maximum security inmates who are house in isolation for violating for violating this is a policy as we strip search every eight hours and body in this in this on our summary judgment motions however there is no reasonable likelihood that he will be subjected to the same conditions he complained about at the beginning of this lawsuit and those complaints were about his conditions in the and has the conditions of his confinement in the infirmary as a maximum security in eight he's not claimed that he's returned to the infirmary as a maximum security inmate and there's no reasonable likelihood that he will return to see building isolation ok mr scott we're here over your time and we dragged you over your time compare the legal standard that applies to my client to the record it's a deliberate indifference standard which which the court of took it as a subjective subjective awareness that there would be a risk to mr parker tell if we essentially advocated or was the medical provider it's extraordinarily high standard as your honor alluded to it's almost a criminal state of mind the must be some evidence and the record that we essentially abandoned a little of his medical provider so consultation we pay for surgery pay for medication we paid for time in the infirmary where he was seen every day we had a period of time a critical period of time between march and june of two thousand and eleven which is what it is surgery right afterwards where but others did as well no it was some regional context is not enough to bring it to trial not in a deliberate and different claim your honor what he needs to establish is not only that he did not get the medication but not getting the medication represented such a departure from the standard of care that it was an abdication of our role that if there was some subjective mindset on the part of the actual medical provider not a reasonable person standard but some subjective belief on the part of the medical provider a determination not to be in that medication aware that it could do him harm and there's nothing in the records you see what if you don't give a medication we don't know the way the medical contracts are divided there's a mental health provider we are the medical provider there is a pharmacy writer so we don't really save that much money by not watering medication medication doesn't run out sometimes just like it doesn't the private sector and it takes some time to refill that may have been some gaps in time between his medication ran out and then we refilled it and mr parker bowles mine that's a constitutional violation or from our perspective at most it's a delay that doesn't even period prior to june thirtieth two thousand and ten and you're right we need to be made clear related to that is that what i've heard testimony and what distinguishes the situation separate from the state is when it comes to the medical records physical therapy and what that says is it's a sending out for mitchell consultation for physical therapy there's no to the net that says what me directed number of physical therapy appointments they should have because typically outside denver will set that number sh inmates were not scandal physical therapy as often as others which is on the record in this case could still constitute a violation under that's how case evidence of deliberate indifference should survive summary judgment where it looks like the provider was turning a blind eye to an inadequate he knows i get checked i can't do anything so i won't you right there it is in my mind there is no justification for every eight hours i mean you're talking about an isolation cell we're going to have toilet