we are here today i'm an appeal from a grand summary judgment against contrary john this is a case regarding pro se and i tell you incarcerated that again who is subjected to pornographic videos of inappropriate sexual conduct that resulted in harm in the form eighth amendment and should not be barred from bringing such a claim under the theory of inhumane conditions of confinement and second as mr carson will address the sufficient record of evidence and genuine and she's a material fact remaining summary judgment was inappropriate well when i'm looking at his complaint all together with  in detail that he was forced to watch these kind of graphic videos and again says well this happened on multiple occasions and he was able to articulate detailed descriptions of what happened in  occurrence and further that what he endured during those occurrences led to impacting him negatively mentally to the point of attempted harm in the form of a suicide address mr johns was housed in the deep division on a treatment unit at the d t you know which he refers to as keep a lock and there's also other names but this is a mental health unit in the prison and i actually explained further that his presence in that housing assignment put them on notice that he was a mental susceptible mentally ill inmate and that showing him this point an armed robber feet could have a substantial risk of harming him  so the fact that he failed to mention this claim and his complaint does not bar his claim altogether when looking at his complaint given that there  that allegations of sexual abuse by the ceo's to prison counselor after all d o c investigation ensued where they found these playa graphic videos in a locked cabin in the office where mr with respect to his conditions of confinement this case is about protecting mentally ill and mates and the corrections officers abuse of power by repeatedly exposing mr jones to graphic pornographic materials ultimately culminati complaint so the sexual assault claim is not at issue here and mr jones has played it sufficient record evidence to show that his reasonable fact finder when looking at the facts in light most amending his complaint it is very difficult for counsel to distinguish fact from fantasy here but after sufficient discovery process the record is the sufficiently shows that mr jones has there is sufficient record evidence to show an eighth amendment by elation with respect to mr jones and in terms of knowledge there's pieces of record of it's evidence here that indicate the crack to the corrections officers did have knowledge of his status as a mentally ill inmate and that because he is in fact mentally ill his heat he is a particularly vulnerable in may and it's obvious that exposing a particularly vulnerable inmate to pornographic materials would be objectively harmful the corrections officer whatever source says there are several pieces the first is that corrections officers ask or did psychological staff to and from mr jones's cell repeatedly and so they knew that he had a mental health condition the corrections officers also knew that the the place where miss jones was housed is commonly known as the mental health unit and so regardless of whether they knew his specific diagnosis the corrections officers did in fact know that he was a mentally ill inmate and that his hit the risk of harm to him because he is particularly vulnerable with that mental health issue is is exposing a mentally ill and made repeatedly to pornographic materials to the point that he had memorized these materials to the point that the materials were actually found in the mental health unit of the prison and to the point where there was that some type of quid pro quo scheme going on between these officers and mr johns because mr jones was given special privileges including  special job he was permitted to have a radio and a television in his cell with him and he was given access to the sergeant office and so all of this record evidence when given when looked at in the li favorable to mr jones reveals that there was some sort of scheme going on between the corrections officers and mr jones with respect to his repeated watching this pornographic material you say that it's all b s that exposure  violation can get i'm sorry prisoner sexual abuse can give rise to an eighth amendment violation because when there is no penal logical purpose to two corrections officers actions it can of ongoing harassment and abuse with mr jones and this court has held that that would be sufficient in terms of that objective harm and furthermore the district court  it its role the role of the fact finder by determining that mr jones i'm sorry the corrections officers needed to know specifically of mr jones's exact i know sis in order to determine knowledge where that's not the case because knowledge is a question of fact for the fact there and therefore your honors we ask that this court vacate the district court's order granting the corrections officers motion for summary judgment entering and thank you very much thank you good afternoon to me please the court my name is circular and i'm here on behalf of mr jenkins while they represent only him today i will present the arguments that all of the corrections officers collectively have raised on appeal for the purposes of today's argument  and i don't argument is sufficient with respect to pleading just particular defiance they raised it in connection with the voter to protect claim which is what mr jones had specifically pleaded in his complaint not the unassertive conditions of individual's mental health and susceptibility or vulnerability to pornography whether or not her fever would aggravate his underlying mental health issues for the most importantly that the corrections officers were aware of the  risk to this individual if they were aware he was a special treat then you're correct your honor the corrections officers were aware that he was in the treatment unit however they had no knowledge of his underlying diagnosis no knowledge of his medical history he had no knowledge of any susceptibility or boehner ability to pornography and most importantly the mr jones has failed to point to any evidence in the record to support  he was in he they had to know that it was a matter they knew that he had a mental health he would not in general population that is correct that he was not in the general population however there is nothing to suggest in the record that they were aware that if he were to have seen any pornographic material that that would somehow result in some sort of harm to this individual in fact when we look at the in fact that's the standard they have to be sophisticated enough in psychology or psychiatry to know that repeated exposure pornography is going to be damaging no your honor the standard as these as the supreme court has articulated is that these individuals had to have actual knowledge or that they needed to have an actual or where innes of this individual of the risk to this particular individual here mr jones is asserting that it was enough for them to have constructive notice by virtue of his presence on that particular unit which is not enough to meet his burden would be enough of what would be enough that somebody actually set these guys data said hey listen you got to stand the jones suffers from schizophrenia so we shouldn't show him pornography is that is that what it would take i think that mr jones would have needed to present evidence that these individuals were aware of the risk that showing him any to any type of pornography would result and some sort of harm to him which he has not done he's not produced any evidence and he's not cited to any evidence in the record how could anybody ever satisfy that part seriously i mean that would be required of affirmative actions by the forty's to sit these gorge down and say listen this is the condition of each one of these inmates in a special housing unit and these guys are more vulnerable to the following sorts of behavior so please don't do it is that what you're saying i'm saying that these individuals it's not enough to simply say that they should have known it's that the actually needed to know that there was the wrist and in this particular  instance nothing indicated that they had that actual knowledge so it's also our position that there is no evidence that a mentally ill inmate exposure cannot be is objective way harmful or that the corrections officers were aware of any risks to mr jones what legitimate reasons would it be for the c e o to show these sort of videos to prisoners your honor the answer would be none we're not aware of any pm logical interest but it's also important to recognize that that for mr jones to succeed on this claim he not only needs to show that this happened but that there was an objective harm and that they were aware demonstrates that this actually occurred it or that they had actually shown mr jones the pornographic video except for his statements that notwithstanding filed and that mr jones had knowledge of what the video what was on the videos but it did not indicate that these individuals pacifically showed him the videos or he said he said you sure as correct but the the real issue before  the court and what i want to draw the court's attention to is whether mr jones has even properly created this claim which he has not in the complaint mr jones specifically and meticulously listed ten causes of  action but a conditions of confinement claim was not one of them in fact he never raised this issue until several months after he initiated this action he didn't he didn't put a label he did not put a label on this what facts  deference with respect to it by virtue of his posse leg and status his passing reference the eighth amendment for his mental health however none of those arguments is for veils when we look at the his complaint is for rid of any of the central elements of the conditions that combine a claim he never pleaded that he had any mental health issues he never pleaded that he had any vulnerability or susceptibility to pornography he never pleaded that seeing her feet would aggravate any mental health issues he never pleaded that the jones is doing is akin to certain that a party committed some wrong but not saying which one and not providing enough facts to identify it leading us to gas which is not sufficient under federal pleading scheme and importantly we should we need to recognize that while the pleading rules are relaxed or could see the litigants they still must set forth the essential elements and put the other party on notice of their claims which mr jones failed to do in addition thank you mr jones reliance on his mental health issues this unavailing the evidence of record demonstrates that he was not suffering under any impairments at were around the time that he prepared in filed the complaint which was on august eighth two thousand and sixteen the three medical help notes from august second two thousand and sixteen until august ninth two thousand and sixteen and the outpatient psychiatric note from august eighteenth two thousand and sixteen show no signs of impairment mr jones furthermore has not pointed this court to any evidence and the record to indicate that he was laboring under an impairment after one time i think that it's also important to mention that mr jones argument is misguided because it clearly is the fact that he team of two seasons attorneys and several ball students that presented him throughout these proceedings if he wanted to prosecute this particular claim his counsel could have and should have amended the complaint to include it for those reasons summary judgment was also appropriate i also would like to just or thirds mission regarding the notice issued i've already indicated that the corrections officers were not on notice by virtue of  defense and by virtue of the grievance but it's also important for the court to recognize that mr jones never raised this issue before the trial court therefore he has waited on appeal i want you on notice by asserting the defense because in the original complaint mr jones specifically listed a coder to protect claim one of the essential elements of a pillar to protect claim is to look deliberate and difference when we had pleaded conditions of confinement claim the district court nonetheless properly entered summary judgment because he is in presented any evidence to establish the central onus of this cause cause of action with regard to the first element there is nothing in the record to show that a mentally ill inmates exposure to pornography is a directly harmful mr jones has not produced and yes he needed an expert to put that to get over that hump i'm not saying that we that he needed to provide only expert testimony or an expert opinion with respect to that but he needed to provide some evidence to that position here he hasn't provided any medical records and expert opinions and his scholarly opinion this case differs from the williams decision where the court recognized there was a breath of literature and there were studies that actually talked about the effects of the conduct in question here mr jones presented no similar literature in new similar studies to actually meet this burd n i think that it's also important for the court to recognize that the medical records had better in the record of better in the record demonstrate that mr jones actually did not have any mental distress from january mr jones instead relies on conjecture but as this court has noted conjecture is not enough to defeat summary judgment with regard to the second element there is nothing in the record to show that the correction officers were actually wear for the substantial risk i already mentioned the thrust of mr jones argument is that these individuals should have known of the risk and should have known about his mental health because of his presence on the d t you know this unless of the jury could come to the conclusion your honor here there is to do we cannot rely on constructive knowledge we need to have actual alleging against each of them they were all questioned an ax to give statements regarding mass they knew what was going on and they the prison in their investigation found that they had  two different plans here and they knew what was going on and they knew that they were going to deny their actions with deliberate indifference and the articulation of the inhumane conditions of confinement later in his brief in response to summ