Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 579 (3d Cir.2004) (citing Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 315-19, 102 S.Ct. 2452); Redman, 942 F.2d at 1439. This interest encompasses a right to protection from psychological as well as physical abuse. See K.H. v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846, 851 (7th Cir.1990) (“Youngberg v. Romeo made clear ... that the Constitution requires the responsible state officials to take steps to prevent children in state institutions from deteriorating physically or psychologically.”). The record indicates that the conditions at HYCF are both physically and psychologically unsafe for the plaintiffs, such that the conditions amount to punishment. The plaintiffs do not complain of a few isolated incidents of name-calling or verbal harassment. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 & n. 3 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 138 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that loss of visitation and commissary privileges inter alia did not deprive the prisoner of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest (B) holding that a prisoner cannot be deprived of a protected liberty interest in goodtime credits without procedural due process (C) holding that a verbal assault although tortious does not deprive a plaintiff of a protected interest (D) holding that sjtanding alone simple verbal harassment does not  deprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest but noting that racially derogatory language  can be quite important evidence of a constitutional violation (E) holding that a prisoners loss of privileges for thirty days was not a property right that would constitute a violation of his constitutionally protected liberty interest
Output (English): holding that a prisoners loss of privileges for thirty days was not a property right that would constitute a violation of his constitutionally protected liberty interest