i think it's important to go through what each of these defendants had to do with his what had good sheriff carol know this fellow was in solitary carroll is the one is the happened here in question is you know the sheriff's got to have personal involvement in this thing in order to be do you think it's unconstitutional for him to refer this fellow to lead program i think that if he is intending to impose greater restrictions on mr williamson because to punish him for alleged misconduct than yes i think well but that question and cons question in this case is whether put him in solitary is what is i the violation of his right correct yes the violation of his or of his rights is that is that he was imposed he was ok but and what were the evidence that the sheriff you're more familiar with record than i am where  guy was in solitary i would have to have to look specifically for evidence of what showcase what about the jail administrator charleton she a party on this appeal she is a partner in the so will she have she the local county detention center and then that same thing is true the two local prosecutors one of them went and got some sort of an order sent in this fellow there in order to correct defendants in this case sterling and rogers sheriff and his charlton they were just referring something that they thought had a problem it wasn't really their duty to investigate further why is it they did their job was to hand him off say this by south carolina department regulations to be in an insult in admission of secretary segregation in a solitary environment saying everybody in this letter program gets put in solitary in the safety program it appeal is something the judge king just touched on a few moments ago and that is whether or not you have a procedural due process claim an assumption of due process current or procedural due he was not being punished he was sent to maybe you're not you're right the a punishment is pretty much everybody else's i think to be sitting there for three years in solitary well certainly at the at the point in time when he was nicer term yes they are put in the administrators are all by themselves because they have to be kept separate so the sheriff know i know that this guy was in solitary that i can't speak to what the sheriff would know or not know that in this record what keeping is mean to what is being described the solitary confinement yes it's no different than twenty three hours a day seven days a week it's no different it's a totally analogous in fact to protective custody for instance for convicts what you're doing is you know relatively calm but i stand i just didn't anybody in south carolina scratch their head at some point say this guy's been in here three years maybe we ought to do something about this well part of the issue with that is of course they were you know he was he was subject to standing trial and there were numerous issues that were created primarily by himself and his counsel only issue on the ground is going to get a drop as you may just throw up early that day renewals there is any independent determination made whether there was other evidence to warrant keeping him or that the original evidence constituted sufficient evidence to consider the continuation of detention the district court get to the point of saying that there's entitlement to qualified immunity in this case when it's clearly established law that convicted inmates have a right to process before this kind of action is taken against us and it's also against them and it's also clearly established law that pretrial detainees have at least the rights of convicted inmates how did the district court legally reach the determination the decent officials were entitled to qualified immunity when the law is really pretty clear on that well i would i would disagree with that judge king and  analysis that the district court did was looking specifically at a safety present your way ssion and again that is a situation where a person because of their conduct in this case very breaches conduct and threats were placed in the department of corrections as a safety pin now there is no fair notice there's no statutory and there's no case law that provides any guidance how that's to be handled now at that particular time in two thousand and thirteen that was even before this court issued its bill worth of and the worth of course the court this court for the first time joined its sister circuits as it put and found that when a pretrial the timing is put into to the extent that there's a challenge the conditions i beg to differ i think that is something the due process going on a conditions case under this court's numerous numerous cases apply a deliberate in there from standard and that has been pursued in this particular case or tell me on the nine hundred day disguised solitary what the rule reasonable relationship is between that and a legitimate non punitive government objective the legitimate nine hundred day nine hundred not the first didn't change from the first he had made those straps to kill correctional often enough law enforcement officers as well as a circuit court judge and his family and that threat hadn't changed or not talking about about the leasing him to the community we're talking about releasing him to the prison population and there are all sorts of murders who are in the prison population where you can you aren't safe keeper so how can you use that as the rationale for continuing to keep him as a safety per as opposed to it being in the general prison population with all due respect just going that's the problem with your analysis is you c happens then if somebody no longer qualifies for safe keeping but has not been tried their return to a local detention some ok well then why wasn't that option considered on a ninety day basis there's nothing in the record that shows that he was interviewed during this three year period that anybody evaluated him for purposes of whether he would be returned to the local  without issuance of process and without insurance a process and if there is there something still pending in the district court or is it over with it's not pending in the district court but it's without prejudice in theory i he could he could refile of course mr rogers has absolutely nothing to do with the safety for process he was a correctional officer at least correctional institution and he was being sued on some of the conditions for we considering that stuff we have to we have what he essentially does is receive the application make certain it's an order and makes a recommendation to the guy he moved around different places these want to kept him in there twenty three hours the the system places law it's whether it's compliant with it whether it's arguably compliant with that or well obviously there are some statute there's some case law from this court including the springman cases as one of the things the port looks at when you're correctly because talking about mistakes of law will give rise to qualified immunity so there's a misspelling through law and says you don't get qualified immunity when it's so bad that any anybody could see it's unconstitutional constitution requires some notice it doesn't in this instance because there's he wasn't placed in there with any expressed intent the punish there was a legitimate non governmental non punitive reasons for him being placed in safety for status it was a administrative decision and we realize that the lower court on the seventh circuit case law there was no case law and in the four circuit that indicated otherwise the deal worth case came out in two thousand and sixteen but wasn't exactly on all fours with us did not specifically answer that question back to district court said there is no guidance from the four circuit on this particular issue for her to make a decision that was part of her reasoning in granting qualified immunity for he's claiming absolute immunity we're claiming two things you're on the first aren't you made was a lack of personal involvement that there's no evidence in his record that and i think this is important for us not lose sight of there are two layers of decision that are being made here the first one is what people have been which just allows this person between the second layer of decisions that's being made here and what conditions is this person being housed on under at the department of corrections what i'm hearing on the appeal and from and from the panel is a focus on the conditions seem to have triggered some right to due process and without conceding that because i don't think that's important to my clients the evidence in the record shows that my client david miller had no part whatsoever in deciding what conditions designation i'm not sure that charles was involved ever miller's sole involvement would be similar to what we see in the de bhavna case which is going to bring into the process or immunity argument and then it and then the batna case it was simply seeking an order the prosecutor involved in a case that is pending on his desk criminal charges that he's responsible for pursuing is seeking an order and that's what happened here with the essentially the sheriff would take on the role if we want to  who is asking that someone see this or then a decision is being made by the governor's office of whether the order should be issued which results in him walking through the doors of department corrections are staying there a separate layer of decision isn't occurring separate decide the conditions triggered a due process right and that mr williamson did not get due process we still have to look at the personal involvement issue here was a personal involvement of the chappelli in the actual constitutional via the district there's a separate layer even if it was decided the due process was required to due process were not provided it has to be on the issue of what what was a constitutional violation because you file ation that triggers the process or into the me whether we need to address if we agree with your position regarding the issue of punishment that that is an issue that should not have been resolved on summary judgment do we address the qualified process for administrative segregation so i think it would be helpful for this court to reach the second issue on qualified immunity well there are so soon for just a second that it was there was a legitimate reason to put him in the safe y program i think an interesting qualified immunity question is when does become too much when do they conclude that his substantive due process rights have been violated by continuing him in that five thirty one where there's a bond hearing where my client's defense attorney was talking about how how the how the restrictions kirkland were so bad that it was difficult for her to even meet with him and then one  or do you know i don't know i know that the judge of the there was the allegedly threatened held on to procedural issues for this case for the criminal case until they could find they could find a judge suit to secure the criminal to your opposing counsel there were only two things that could have been done safe keeper or local jail does that change the analysis at all you know when i came into this i thought there might have options available were safe people or local jail did does that make your case does that weaken your case at all you know i don't i don't think it necessarily weakens the our case assuming that that's kept because certainly any justification for the initial upgrade to the solitary confinement certainly has diminished as time went on and you know also for this for them to renew the safety preorders there's a different standard they're supposed to show that they were changed conditions or that either there was no changing conditions or they're so to show good cause to keep him there when there's no evidence in the record that that occur and a he had no disciplinary actions for three saying that every ninety days or had been a new finding a good call yes you're on a good cause or no change in condition is a record reveal that there was a new finding every ninety days of the  p your honor in regards to even the governor's executive order delegates responsibility down to director sterling to both compile the record and find relevant is mandatory judges make reports of recommendations to district courts they have to be they have to be you know adopted by district courts and they still you know allow for the process at that point and that's what and that's what we're saying here if we send this