miles confinement and segregation was an atypical and significant hardship on him that gave rise to a liberty interest in the process that he was afforded before being placed there was constitutionally insufficient now the district court what his cell had been like in general population there was no evidence comparing the physical aspects beyond mr lyle's testimony where he asserted that it or that it was more severe but our position is that sounding requires a more holistic analysis you look at the time spent in segregation in addition to all of the conditions and here the district court should have considered that in addition to the physical aspects when placed in segregation mr while lost access communicating with his family he lost his right and he also testified in his deposition that he lost access to a crisis team which worsened his already preexisting psychological condition was not a policy of that he did not receive the type of care he would have received had he been in general population and that's significant here because as i mentioned earlier he was already on medication for having a mental health issues that needed treatment so is your position that minardi is already the most restrictive prison that he could have been put in i don't have enough information about compared to being sued every other prison in the state your honor but i don't believe there's a question as to whether three times and there's been standing room to take into account the key specific facts that have that are before you what's the evidence that the officers he had mental health issues for  nevertheless understand and you are able to take a look at what actually happened over the course of his time in segregation that's really the point of the time element but if you're if you're trying to decide at the outset what procedures are don't know how long you're going to be in it many times particularly under administrative segregation situations they come up for review periodically and they might end up spending more money for example in segregation when they hadn't necessarily known it would take that long suicide and not incarceration that content not incarceration your honor but also if i could just touch briefly on number twenty three that juror had specifically said that he could be impartial because he understands that there are people who get good medical treatment but the state at that point had said yeah i agree with mr lyle i think these were you know racially charged three strikes and the district court had said now i disagree and gone forward could you then on appeal still in a trial i do think that had they had the discussion on the record to discuss which whether or not these various potential jurors should be struck they might have been able to work this out there were of course additional linear persons still waiting i think we can all agree the court did not a credibility determination when ruling on the pats on challenges what's the appropriate remedy so we've asked for every man for the court to evaluate in the first instance i can see that the court may decide that there w jury instruction would would be given to distinguish between what we've called simple verbal harassment and what you would say is actionable under so your honor what we're asking for here is actually fairly narrow when there is a i i think the fairest way to describe what's going on with the suicide attempts is that there are intervening facts to intervene in claims intervening actors who are being deliberately different and  similarly situated prong into creating a question that the jury might answer that because they were treated differently in their both of different races therefore the jury concluded speculate that race played a factor but that is not enough for summary judgment on the crane so while we are briefed does provide a lot or actual context around why these actors might have done what they've done at their claim really fail some during this whole ordeal is alleging that he's been abused by cellmate and and that's really why the f you know if this is really limited to t number nine was not an african american and he was stricken all the same three even went to far on the health care providers inmates was most definitely negative based on involving his sister when she was incarcerated can tell you for sure on that issue there's no evidence on the record that there was a state the jurors were so they were never stricken because of their race all counsel pointed to was the fact that they were african american since i've been a little loose on the clock on this one let's say for more minutes if you need  family members in prison but he also stated very clearly yes i can be impartial because there are people who get good medical treatment but i think the takeaway here is that all of this is why the district court should have gone through this and it would be proper at this point you remember for the district go back to the idea that he did not in fact attempt suicide again so of course as as your honor and acknowledged it can't be the case that someone has to successfully commit suicide in order to have a claim but i also think that  as he was in a situation where he was by himself and no longer under suicide watch the things she said might have stuck in his mind he might have tried again later the point of going in if amendment claim is that you're aggravating the risk of serious harm not that serious harm actually ultimately happens that's just not the point and when you're for example if i make a more concrete hypothetical if someone has a broken arm and there is extensive delay in treatment the fact is that arm is wealth we agree that prison officials certainly have a certain amount of discretion when deciding how to run their hearings but under wolf you're presumed a witness unless there's some particular reason not to have one mr lyle's not seeking to cross examine and that's not what we're asking