it please the court my name is galen bascom on behalf of appellant timothy findley this case concerns the solitary confinement of a contrary medical judgment for nearly four months of a person with an extensive history of suicidal behaviors and self harming behaviors at this preliminary stage of the proceeding the district court had the obligation to construe the pro se complaint liberally to draw all reasonable inferences in its favor and to correctly applied the prevailing law the district court did not do so offering only inadequate reasons and for some claimed no reasons whatsoever in all respects the claim should be reinstated turning first to the eighth amendment claim of style and farmer deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and risks of harm to prisoners the test is both objective and subjective and in this case both problems were satisfied for the object of prong this court is held in comstock that severe mental illness is enough and for mr finley in particular there was specific evidence of what his serious mental illness was he had it the history of self injury behavior he had extensive cutting he had swallowed nine razor blades and he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and with borderline personality disorder he had also previously attempted to hang  so when i put him in solitary did they give us a reason to preserve his own safety or did they say he had engaged in misconduct and this was a punishment the form says that it's for possession of dangerous contraband that would be the razors correct the razors that he used to harm himself and that he swallowed  so it was a penalty situation correct thank you mr bascomb could i suggest that you make sure you leave time to discuss the a b a claim  the atypical hardship claim certainly on for the eighth amendment claim there was a specific recommendation by a medical professional that he would likely suffer harm while in solitary confinement and this is an after the objective component as well but it also shows why the subjective component was satisfied the subjective component requires that there exists facts on which an inference of the harm could be drawn and that the inference was actually drawn here there is far more than that there was the allegation in the complaint that there were multiple meetings that discussed mr finley's condition and there was this particular recommendation missoni was responsible finlay's medical treatment and there was no warrant to override that medical judgment all of the reasons given by the district court for dismissing these claims were inadequate there was the fact that he was no longer in confinement which does not erase the violation there is the fact that he received some treatment which does not prove a lack of deliberate indifference and there was the fact that he could have been treated even worse which obviously does not show that the defendants behavior did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference here there was a prolonged confinement of an individual with severe mental illness for possession of tool itself harms and that is enough to show the knowing disregard of a substantial risk of harm so turning next to the eighty eight claim the district court did not even mention the this claim and decide in explaining why it should be dismissed whatever the errors in the and alice is it the minute claim the lack of analysis whatsoever and even worse capacity mr fenley here is seeking a permanent injunction he is also attempted attempting to amend his complaint to add a claim for damages why isn't the injunction a moot point of this not in solitary at this point your honor is he is no longer in solitary confinement he is currently in the interim care program at marquette however it's not moot because what he is seeking as a permanent injunction against  being placed in solitary confinement how could we issue a permanent injunction when we don't have any idea what is mental health is going to be in the future your honor this court is not faced with the question of whether to enter a permanent in and that would be a question on remand if he makes out a claim they could be allowed to proceed the district court would be under the op occasion to narrowly tailor that injunction to the specific facts of the case and one could imagine address if the decision is reversed and remanded it's something that the district court would be able to consider if the i'm the only required permanent injunction regardless of dis ability the claim request a permanent injunction against being placed back in solitary confinement and the obligation in deciding on the entitlement to that relief at the remedial stage would include narrow channel or ing and all of these other considerations but it's not those all those considerations are not applicable to whether the claim validly makes after the complaint validly makes out the elements of the relevant claims for the a claim all that was necessary was to satisfy a very light burden and to show that there was some accommodation that was not facially unreasonable and placing him in the mountain health unit when confronted with this possession of the tools of his self harm was such of a facially reasonable accommodation the burden shifting framework would present an opportunity to provide for example alternative accommodation but at this stage the only question is that very light burden and the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to satisfy  but about the due process argument so the same serious mental illness that in titles mr finley to accommodations is also central to the nature of the confinement so this court in hard invade said both duration matter for whether there is an atypical and significant hardship under c n n and that nature requires a nice sensitive factual analysis which includes relevant personal characteristics of the defendant and of the present are and here mr fenley had the very relevant care characteristic that he was suffering from a severe mental illness specifically has his bipolar and borderline personality disorder his history of suicidal behavior and his history of self harm to say that in part barry what with the what our courts seem to be concerned about was the idea that you could put somebody in solitary for this court didn't seem to be quite concerned with that possibility and at the time of responding we didn't seem to be concerned that he had been placed in solitary for seventeen under different facts and circumstances of the nature of the confinement nature of the confinement here was quite different from the nature of the confinement there because the duration and the nature combine to for the itself has policies about how similarly situated prisoners should be treated including policies against placement over medical recommendation of prisoners in solitary confinement long term solitary confinement has numerous documented deleterious effects in particular for prisoners with mental illness and that is what changes the nature with respect to those individuals the district court's one paragraph dismissal is an essentially  a rule that reads the nature of the confinement out of the analysis entirely the allegations are arguing that he couldn't be put in solitary even for the reason for the amount of time that he was because of his for the i would note first your honor that that is a question most appropriately resolved on remand after the liberty interest is established but for the disciplinary context the process provided in wolf should be provided including not only a hearing but the ability to call witnesses in a written statement of reasons among other possible elements of process as would be evaluated under an ultimate application of the matthews balancing test by the district court the allegations in the complaint here were enough to show that the nature of the hardship was a typical and significant for a liberty interest and if this court has no f questions i would say simply that for each of finley's three claims the district court failed to properly consider and credit the serious allegations in the complaint and its judgment should be reversed thank you thank you