demonstrated genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not the seizure of his talents substantially burdened his practice of his faith and judaism the district court in permissibly held that mr buckley's religion was not certain because religious belief then yes well what if it's sincere i need one hundred of these i'm a different kind of a practitioner and i need a hundred and i'm not trying to play games but he has multiple shawls and so there has to be somewhere something ten page that says that he needs more than one know you're on the jewish religion says one is enough then are we allowing just idiosyncratic behavior to determine what the constitution requires you know your honor as a preliminary matter judaism has very stiff ransacks there are orthodox and more modern versions of judaism and the court didn't say where it was getting its tenet from however more importantly the united states supreme court has of permed many times it is not within the judicial kind to question the centrale of the of a particular belief or practice as if they're outlandish that's too bad they're protected but no your honor that's where the second prong comes in in this case in the prisoner context whether or not to be the violation or the pardon was reasonably related to a legitimate  interest but as to whether or not there is a burden yes it is up to the the individual practice practitioner to demonstrate to the court what their faith requires and how it was burned by the seizure the court is not equipped to weigh and determine what practices or beliefs are legitimate or central or required and which are not simply not the the role of the district court and mr buckley did declare and state and argue in his papers that his practice of judaism requires  them take another one of they were involved in a religious exercise you know that is precisely one of the reasons why it's on so it's unclear how this could be reasonably related because they see one towel but not the talent but not the other three that they have their own admitted disputed facts in this case mr buckley offered testimony that he informed the repeatedly informed attendance that he had not received any water during the course of his confinement to the holding cage testimony from the other side was that defending gran your position is that sufficient to draw an inference that was done with a culpable state of mind exactly he would they were made specifically aware that he had not there's also testimony that when mr buckley informed the defendants that he  denial pension then by definition that apparently is not an eighth amendment violation well even if that isn't a tenement violation what's the evidence of the damage or injury that seems to be any so what's your recovery and dollar well mr buckley speaking  practice my religion and that fairly is not the law under the test i don't think the court has to go as far as players are asking in this case the district court properly found that there was no substantial burden on his exercise o damages so little of that couldn't possibly apply even prospectively which your answer to the other allegations that he was treated harshly in violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause one one one fact that i think both sides overlooked that i noticed in going over mr emergency doing at this time and they feel they can nobody anticipated he was going to be in that cell that long there was a delay finding him an open cell and one with a compatible cell made it stretched on for eleven hours i think if you look at the record medical clearance in other words to make sure there's no medical problem that would preclude their placement as sick and that's what i think he's if he's saying he didn't get there isn't any evidence that he had any sort of serious condition that would have that he needed treatment for review as wrecker so i eat our point the defendant's point is that even if you take all of this tax through the deprivations here are just don't really rise to the to the level of amendment violation on either really the objective or the subjective grounds he can't he doesn't show any any harm from just not having water or food for this brief period of time and would have had it before and he would have had  argument in court rather he made statements both under oath in his declaration and in his argument portion i believe the declaration was not as as detailed as it could have been but again that is due to the fact he's a pro se litigant and he did not understand that he should put forth amendment claims your honor the hunger strike in mr buckley in the record of states of the hunger strike was not begun until after his confinement and yes there is no evidence that he was that there was any actual injury or damage to him as a result of his confinement but that is because the defendants failed to follow protocol and have him medically cleared before he was transferred into at of course two or three days later after he's no longer in a state of dehydration and standing for eleven hours in ninety degree weather he probably was medically ok when he was finally checked out but that's not mean that there was not a serious risk of injury to his health by being confined in a cage almost naked for eleven hours in ninety degree weather without food or water in your honour's