process claim mccoy it was a pretrial detainee was cleared by medical staff and placed in general population but then he was moved to administrative segregation without explanation that's affectively solitary confinement where he remained for the rest of his detention why in the words of defendant meant chaka to protect mccoy from other inmates and to stop mccoy from quote potentially preying on other inmates due to his sexual orientation on the street you let your not contesting the i'll take that cap yet but in year past year is and the case you're not challenging or saying that the district court in correctly dismissed owes defendants are you that's correct what's interesting about this statement from m is it is the only evidence that summary judgment it's the sole piece of evidence defendants rely on and a jury could have construed it as supporting the fact that mccoy was segregated for punitive reasons in violation of his due process right what's interesting is that there is literally nothing else in the record supporting that there are no policies or procedures of the president how they deal with gay or transgender inmates there is no evidence about a determination that mccoy present safety concern there's no history of incidents with him or any other detainees there's no specific incident when he actually gets to the jail he's cleared by the medical and placed in general population but still moved to  mccaughey maintain a due process action if the conditions in the medical mental health unit didn't pose and they typical and significant hardship medical segregation presented conditions that would me say and didn't standard your honor medical segregation in this case meets that standard because it's effective y solitary confinement he's in according to the record mr mccloy is in a prison cell by himself for twenty three hours a day he's only let out for one hour for what is called range time when he can do a variety of activities but that is different than the typical prisoner in the typical situation and the other thing that's important about this case is that mccoy is a pretrial detainee he's not convicted and so any punishment at that point violates his due process rights this would be a different situation if he were an inmate who was convicted and the sorts of and any sort of punishment as is incident to the conviction this court has dealt with this issue of punit segregation in a number of other cases we cite them in our brief and i don't think there's any suggestion in those cases that segregation of the sort that mr mccoy suffered is anything but you know different than the regular conditions of of prison and the question is whether he's put in segregation for punitive reasons or for valid safety reasons and in some of the other cases the court goes through and explains when a valid safety reason is a perk is a reason to put someone in segregation for example when there's an actual incident that happens or in some of the extreme cases when the detainee solicits the burn the murder of the arresting officer from the facility in those cases we don't have any dispute that it would be proper for the detainee to be put in segregation without notice and hearing the jail is well within its discretion to do that what makes this case different and more like the higgs case that we cite is that there isn't any evidence like that the  that we have is a statement that men chaka makes in the context of litigation it's not made when mccoy is segregated it's years after the fact and all men chaka says is i put him in segregation to protect him from other  stop him from potentially preying on inmates because he's gay i think it's i mean essentially the determination that mint chocolate makes is mccoy is a predator and it's not based on evidence it's not based on something  history and experience at the facility it's due to mccoy sexual orientation that is exactly what men talk to says and i think that that's the sort of evidence that when a jury hears mr men chalk on the stand they're intitled to say you put him in segregation out of animist toward gay people it wasn't based on security risk it wasn't based on the evidence it wasn't based on a thought out policy or procedure from the jail that we know that gay detainees  notice spells out how summary judgment is to be opposed meaning what are your thoughts that on the prejudice component an argument that mr mccourt was not prejudiced as a result of the fact that he ended up complying by putting in  verified information sure i think he was prejudiced here for a few reasons st the record is not clear that he put in an affidavit for any verified information and the district courts dismissal order he grant summary judgment because mccoy doesn't notice is to put the pro se party on alert of what he needs to produce and so without that notice i mean it's it's a predicate to mccoy's litigating skills i guess that he submitted some information at the district court construed as an affidavit but mccoy never got the notice to say give me your documents give me an affidavit explain your basis and i think that sort of that's compounded by the other procedural ground that i think rehearsal is required and that is that mccoy never intent it was a statement that was ambiguous as to whether the inmates actions caused punishment by the jell officials or the inmates actions cause a safety concern and amicus fails to direct to the court to as direct statement as to punitive intent he says well coiffed classification was not punitive instead it was primarily to protect him he goes on to discuss about the safety concern that was raised upon his investigation through the middle medical intake where mccloy identifies himself as homosexual and this court has ruled in ramos that that investigation and notice of a inmate sexual orientation is  determination of that safety concern is given deference now he goes on amicus notes point out cases within this circuit where there is valid reasons for admin segregation due to other safety concerns but the deference and the expertise segregation the reason there was a safety concern because he noticed an investigator it the sexual orientation of the plaintiff it's the day to day experience and expertise of the jail officials that is important here and that orientation and he noticed the deference is given because in ramos it's discussed if he doesn't do that investigation and he ignores the known risks to homosexuals if in a jail then he the person well at the time the admin segregation was the medical floor of the lake county jail it's a day to day decision by the correctional officers and the idea is not there the the  mr mccoy was ridiculed was jumped was in a violent altercation because of sexual orientation  homosexual and identified a small sect writers if i could turn to the notice issue you know the analysis does not you know whether the trial the docket does depict that notice was given there says goes forward into whether there was actual prejudice in amicus simply to fail to direct this court to any document that prejudice the plaintiff by failure to give notice there's no document on the record that would create a disputed material fact if  notice he would have produced to support his motion for some response a summary judgment would have to be of the record that because discovery often is not in the record well you're on it at the right if it's not it's not pinpoint to the court what document what it created that disputed how to respond to summary judgment it doesn't tell you what facts you need to plead or state in order to spot survive summary judgment and that's their argument the amicus argument is that he didn't have notice that if he had other documents something he should have submitted to raise an issue of fact and that's how he was prejudiced and you in your honor there's no record of what document was out there that would created that disputed fact to you saying they should have place that or move to chocolat may have been incorrect in identifying the safety concerns but he's given deference on that decision and still find that there was no period of intent and that's exactly what occurred here and even at that your honor so just a few quick points i'd like to emphasize on rebuttal the st is that the intent of the officer in segregating is a classic jury question there is no evidence in the record that men talk a segregated mccoy for safety reasons the only evidence is his statement in his affidavit and at best it is ambiguous i think there's a good basis for a jury to infer punitive intent from his statement that he segregated mccoy due to his segregated to his sexual orientation is there anything else in the record that would raise an issue of fact as to his intent besides the air affidavit yes your honor i think the circumstantial evidence from the context and timing of mccoy segregation the fact that he was cleared by medical and actually placed in general population and there are no incidents suggests that there was no reason for him to be sent to administrative segregation i think secondly the lack of evidence on the other side is pretty powerful that there is no contemporaneous document or policy or statement from anyone even suggesting that there's a security concern at the time on appeal not in the district court the other side tries to buttress the safety concerns by referring to this fight that happened after the fact not only does happen after the fact but i think when mccoy is in his cell twenty three hours a day and he's put out for one hour around other inmates and gets in a fight that tells me that segregation is not really intended to protect his safety otherwise he would be put out for a one hour by himself and finally on the noticed issue i don't think there's any suggestion in the case law that we would add documents to the record about what would have gone in the you know if nothing else those cases say reverse