judgment against him and remain and for discovery in trial mr williams is raising two separate issues on appeal the st issue pertains to the unconstitutional failure to address is understood to plead serious and reasonable to deprive mr williams a pretrial detainees suffering chronic and severe pain of the modest remedy of a mattress for twelve hours per day for three consecutive months that he spent in solitary confinement in that jail confinement in earlier portion of his time at the jail and it was only when he was then charged with additional rules violations in june two thousand and fourteen and when his three month term and solitary confinement began around that  record lacks evidence that there was ever any medical judgment and also for a few honest people which is rather williams's medical needs require him to have a mattress for those twelve daytime hours when he was in solitary confine we don't think that the the correct a medical applications a lot here on the nd issue williams to due process claims against the correctional officers who cited him for rules violation imposed on june th so the the district courts conclusion that the punishment was imposed on june th therefore wrong for the nd step which was never raised as an issue by the defendants in the district court  judgement about this single issue he submitted a lengthy affidavit about his medical determination about his medical determinations in this case and he opined on the issue of whether mr williams needed a nd mattress at night but during the day or night there is your honor i guess because the jail initially there's a medical note from december rd teen in which medical staff determined because of his chronic health condition  williams was given out accommodation for numerous months leading up to the relevant june time period there's a time just speeded up that it was from medical staff so it was based on some sort of medical determination  and also that it does state because of his chronic health conditions so there was a medical justification or explanation for that decision and the other if the other piece of evidence a separate appendix page which is a note from  resulted in the recommendation for actually twenty days of disciplinary segregation up until this appeal travis williams and everyone accepted that on june th circuit noonan came to his cell to try to conduct a hear which really set up a hearing at which time mr williams was uncooperative because of that it was clear to the court as well as all of the parties that the june th appeal was untimely under the st layer of the racine county jail that appeal was finally under the st layer of the process for that reason on appeal we accepted that because mr williams otherwise failed to exhaust the  layer of the disciplinary process that is on june th bradley friend denied the june th appeal as on time for the same reasons the judge respected it was not until june the relevant time period there is no dispute that prior to this time period that this was something that was necessary under adam's case he is entitle to rely on the judgment of medical relevant time period daugherty is did not issue that mattress was because he knew that would be overruled by jail staff or jail policy there were also allegations about whether a nurse would interfere in the application of the mattress decision specifically addressed the issue of whether a nurse could overrule the mattress order in his affidavit and he specifically addressed again to the nd mattress but he did not address whether mr williams was entitled to or had a medical need for other things you know your honor i believe the last sentence with which references thirty five dollars days on just segregation time that was sufficient to put the jail i noticed that he was challenging that that included twenty days of segregation