for the reasons the follow those disputed facts and others similarly make a summary judgment in appropriate with respect to mr doherty's remaining claims already accordingly respectfully request this court to great case the district court interaction with mr arrington in tell the op that in the cafeteria daughter i agree that the evidence in the record is stronger with respect to defendant page and the interactions that mr doherty had with defendant but the question was a little different it certainly stronger but what's the evidence to support the retaliation claim against mr harrington in light of your client's own testimony beyond that testimony your honor i think that a jury could tell me the nature of the derogatory statement sure the nature of the alleged derogatory statement is that mr doherty said that the especially that the correctional officers on duty were looking for an excuse to certain inmates based on race went to a board i am not sure if they grievance for filed by mr doherty went to a board so as to defend that harrington you still have to show that your client's protected speech was a motivating was born to stop maiming defendant harrington in his grievances both defended harrington and defended pay had responsibility for the north sell houses of minard mr doherty testified but is there any evidence that as part of that responsibility that they were at that defendant hearing to have the responsibility for reviewing grievances knowing about grievances there is struck there is testimony from all parties that the defendants made up what they called rounds of the north linking that to defendant here intent the fact that he walked around and generally may have heard grievances we know we didn't hear any of your clients because your client tried he didn't have any interactions with them and trying to nail you down on exactly what your evidence the circumstances were fairly similar to to the to the evidence in this case in that case if you court ruled that deliberate indifference could be found on behalf of two defendants because they patrol the area in which the in which various pest infestations in the cell including spiders roaches water bugs and mice additional insect infestation in the communal showers ventilation so clark that the vents looked like dirty cotton a provide any hygenic materials to attempt to combat these conditions and the lack of political drinking water while he was in segregation going to mr doherty's testimony demonstrated that he suffered all of these conditions from april through june two thousand and twelve and this court and others have previously held that many of the complaints that mr doherty had qualified as sufficiently serious tell me again more of these grievances go after the committee and then that would be the final word but it is it is more of the same that you have these cases it did not your honor mr doherty filed his grievances or presented them to officers and he did not hear back about submit it into a box i think counsel indicated that or he can hand it to an officer what happens next is that it goes to a grievance counselor the counselor reviews the grievance and if he or she is able to resolve whatever issue then they'll do some of the rumors are on the record taking reasonable measures to improve the conditions for example inmate workers clean the showers and relying on the exterminator and providing inmates with things like a plunger to resolve issues with clogged toilet events did not occur more generally both defendants testified that when they were making their rounds of the north sell houses they would run into things like you sewage in the sewage in the cells broken toilets lightbulbs that were burnt out and in sacks generally so there is some testimony from the defendants that the conditions existed and that they were aware