[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
is number 24-511.

[00:00:03] Speaker 00:
Farmer Lyle Jolly at balance versus unknown named BOP directors, FBOP director from 2017 to present, individually and in official capacity adult.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
Alisa Yeva, Amicus Curiai for the at balance, Mr. Sampa for the at police.

[00:00:20] Speaker 05:
Good morning, Ms.

[00:00:20] Speaker 05:
Ellis-Tienpa.

[00:00:23] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Judge Wilkins.

[00:00:24] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Christina Alexeyeva, Court Appointed Counsel on behalf of Mr. Jolly.

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
I'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:33] Speaker 01:
Mr. Jolly's complaint tells a Kafkaesque story.

[00:00:36] Speaker 01:
He was designated a member of the Aryan Brotherhood without any evidence, notice, or opportunity to respond.

[00:00:43] Speaker 01:
Based on that designation, a year later, and largely nothing else, he was accused of facilitating a racial war.

[00:00:50] Speaker 01:
He received a perfunctory hearing where the only concrete charge against him was again that he was an Aryan Brotherhood member and his appeal was shuffled between different BOP offices without ever getting a merits review.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
Now the upshot of all of that is that Mr. Jolly has been caged in a cell half the size of a parking spot for more than four years and he has 20 years more to go.

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
The government argues that Mr. Jolly's complaint should be dismissed for failure to plead sufficient facts, even as Mr. Jolly has explained that the BOP has refused to release the records to him.

[00:01:27] Speaker 01:
The court should reverse the district court's decision on the Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims and allow them to proceed.

[00:01:33] Speaker 03:
On your Fifth Amendment claim, you're suggesting that in the allegations, he was told before the hearing that it was only procedural that this would happen and that he also felt that this was preordained.

[00:01:47] Speaker 03:
Any other particular allegations that kind of meet that particular outcome to suggest that he was not appropriately given due process?

[00:01:55] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:56] Speaker 01:
Well, Mr. Jolly's contention really boils down to the notice that he received itself.

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
If you take a look at the appendix 55, besides the fact that he was accused of being an Aryan Brotherhood member, all the other charges are exceedingly vague, willing participant, possessed direct knowledge, assisted in the facilitation, significant threat,

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
No one can effectively defend themselves against such a vague charge.

[00:02:25] Speaker 04:
What was needed instead was a concrete... You think being a member of the Aryan Brotherhood would suffice to segregate him?

[00:02:34] Speaker 01:
A couple things, Your Honor.

[00:02:35] Speaker 01:
First of all, Mr. Jolly alleges that he never actually received any process when he was designated the Aryan member to begin with, because he was given no notice at all, even though the BOP requires there to be some sort of... He got notice that that was the basis on which

[00:02:54] Speaker 04:
BOP was thinking of sending him to the supermax and he had at least an informal hearing and an opportunity to rebut that charge.

[00:03:06] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, but he never received the note, the factual basis of the charge that he was an Aryan Brotherhood member.

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
So, for example, what was needed is something like an allegation of a meeting that he attended.

[00:03:17] Speaker 01:
where the Aryan Brotherhood discussed the facilitation of the supposed racial war.

[00:03:25] Speaker 01:
Not at all, Your Honor, but just something factually specific to him.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
And that is what the Supreme Court said in Wolf.

[00:03:32] Speaker 01:
It said, advanced written notice with evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action.

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
That is the minimum requirement of due process is what the Supreme Court said.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
And the reason is because, quote, the function of notice is to give the charged party a chance to marshal the facts in his defense and to clarify what the charges are in fact.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
And this is why, Your Honor, my friend on the other side refers to such a meeting in their briefing.

[00:03:59] Speaker 01:
And I understand that would be helpful to them if something that concrete was actually charged in the notice.

[00:04:05] Speaker 01:
Of course, the problem is that the basis for referral contains no such charge.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
In fact, the basis for referral essentially copy paste the regulatory criteria that the BOP itself sets for the transfer to Florence.

[00:04:19] Speaker 01:
Consider what I just read to you and compare that to the regulatory criteria on the Appendix 54.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
Placement is appropriate where a prisoner has been identified as participating in, organizing, or facilitating any group misconduct that adversely affected the orderly operation of a correctional facility.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
That's essentially the same thing, copy-pasted, added an Aryan Brotherhood label on that.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
It cannot be that that alone is sufficient to send someone off to solitary confinement for 25 years.

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
and coupled that, of course, with the lack of any meaningful appeal in this case, Your Honor.

[00:04:54] Speaker 01:
It might be that if the original pre-deprivation hearing was lacking, that the appeal or the post deprivation review could make up for that fact.

[00:05:02] Speaker 01:
But the problem is that Mr. Jolly's allegations here, supported very well by the record, is that the appeal was just shuffled between the different levels of the BOP, and he never got a merits review.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
You know, you, of course, challenge his status as a member of the Aryan gang.

[00:05:19] Speaker 03:
But really, you're more concerned about the fact that he's in solitary confinement.

[00:05:24] Speaker 01:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
We are not challenging the classification just for the sake of classification.

[00:05:30] Speaker 01:
And we agree that there is case law that says there is no due process interest just in the classification.

[00:05:35] Speaker 01:
And we're not at all asking the court to pass any kind of substantive judgment on what would be enough to send someone to Florence.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
The only point here is that the process that Mr. Jolly received doesn't meet even the most fundamental building block of due process, which is particularized notice.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
Even the BOP regulations themselves with regard to notice say,

[00:05:59] Speaker 01:
prisoners will be afforded, quote, a written summary of the specific behavior which forms the basis for the placement recommendation.

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
This is at appendix 55.

[00:06:10] Speaker 01:
So the BLP itself even recognized that what is needed here, allegation of a specific behavior and yet it did not.

[00:06:17] Speaker 05:
But your argument isn't that regulation, a violation of that regulation in and of itself violates suit prices.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
That's absolutely right, Your Honor.

[00:06:25] Speaker 01:
Our argument is under the Constitution, but the BOP regulations are, of course, relevant if the court chooses to look at the Matthews test, because this is essentially a recognition from the BOP that these procedures are not burdensome in that context, and these should be provided.

[00:06:40] Speaker 05:
Is your argument that it violates due process to not get the specific notice pre-deprivation?

[00:06:50] Speaker 05:
So in other words,

[00:06:52] Speaker 05:
if we read the complaint as saying, oh, the only notice he got specifically was that he was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood prior, but once he objects

[00:07:11] Speaker 05:
And during the subsequent review process, at that time he is told of the specific reason that the Bureau believes that he is a member.

[00:07:29] Speaker 05:
Would that suffice for due process purposes?

[00:07:33] Speaker 01:
There is no court that has set a specific floor on what due process requires in the prison context.

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
But we think that that would certainly go a long way towards satisfying due process because there must be at some point at least an opportunity to really contest the charges.

[00:07:49] Speaker 01:
And the Supreme Court in Wilkinson made that point that the problem with not receiving an initial particularized notice initially is that then you don't really have an opportunity to object on appeal.

[00:08:04] Speaker 01:
So that's what the Supreme Court said.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
at 545 US 226.

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
A particular notice provides basis for objection and allows for meaningful post deprivation review.

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
Because if you don't know what you were charged with initially, there is no way that you can effectively represent yourself in post deprivation review either.

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
So we do think that they're connected, Your Honor, but we also think that, yes, it could be remedied to some degree.

[00:08:31] Speaker 01:
Here, the court doesn't even need to reach that hypothetical because there was just nothing at no level of review.

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
If I could point a pivot to the Eighth Amendment, given the time, the question under the Eighth Amendment is whether conditions pose a substantial risk of serious harm.

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
Now, the first, the second, the third, the fourth circuits have all recognized that long-term isolation can constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the test.

[00:09:04] Speaker 03:
And that was one of the findings that was not made by the district court to constitute.

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
That's exactly right, because this case comes to the court in a motion to dismiss.

[00:09:14] Speaker 01:
And all the cases that we're talking about, even the Rezac case that my friend on the other side brings up, all of those were decided on summary judgment.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
There is no court that they've pointed to that has dismissed a claim like this at this early litigation stage.

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
And it's not just the conditions of confinement that are so severe here.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
But the eighth amendment, of course, has this proportionality component, right?

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
So Mr. Jolly is not asking the court to say all solitary confinement and all supermax prisons is unconstitutional.

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
he's making an as-applied narrow claim.

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
And it might well be that there is sufficient penological interest to hold someone else in solitary confinement, like the terrorists in Rezak, if the government can explain adequately why they can't be held safely in any other prison.

[00:10:01] Speaker 03:
And the way you're arguing the case by suggesting that all these other circuits have looked at basically the science of psychological science with respect to long-term confinement,

[00:10:13] Speaker 03:
You are not closing off that in a particular case, that may not be the case.

[00:10:19] Speaker 03:
You're leaving it open to suggest a case-by-case remedy?

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
May I answer the question?

[00:10:27] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:10:28] Speaker 01:
So the first component is whether there is this risk of harm.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
So there is obviously an individualized examination of the actual prisoner.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
However, some courts have gone further and said that because the question is the risk, that the harm will occur.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
And here, for example, Mr. Jolly faces 20 more years.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
He's looking for injunctive relief.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
He's not looking for damages, looking backwards.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
So that would be enough in itself to establish the risk, we think.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
But of course, the court can also have a more narrow holding, directing Mr. Jolly to come up with specific evidence on summary judgment.

[00:11:03] Speaker 03:
And then how do you respond with respect to how the district court used the Arab case?

[00:11:07] Speaker 03:
Because I feel like it's factually distinguishable.

[00:11:11] Speaker 01:
So the Airiff case was about the procedural due process.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
And the Airiff case supports Mr. Jolly 100%, Your Honor.

[00:11:20] Speaker 01:
I mean, there, the court found a liberty interest, even though the conditions of confinement caused significantly less deprivation.

[00:11:31] Speaker 01:
than the conditions here.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
Their inmates were allowed in common spaces for 16 hours a day, educational and professional opportunities.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
They had no restrictions on exercise relative to general population.

[00:11:44] Speaker 01:
And still, the court found a protected liberty interest because the conditions were indefinite and they were atypical.

[00:11:51] Speaker 01:
quote, only a handful are placed under these restrictions.

[00:11:55] Speaker 01:
And of course, Mr. Jolly easily clears that bar.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
His confinement is indefinite.

[00:12:01] Speaker 01:
Florence holds less than 400 prisoners.

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
So it is definitely in a typical placement.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
And on top of that, the conditions that he alleges are far, far more horrific.

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
This case is here on a motion to dismiss, but there were other documents attached to the complaint and discussed, essentially, even in the allegations.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
So I want to make sure.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
Are we still on a motion to dismiss or has this somehow converted to summary judgment?

[00:12:23] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
We are on the motion to dismiss.

[00:12:26] Speaker 01:
The documents that Mr. Jolly attaches are just a few little excerpts from the prison records to support his allegations of the fact that he did not receive due process.

[00:12:37] Speaker 01:
And as he alleges again and again, he has asked for more documents and the BOP has refused to release even his own medical records to him.

[00:12:46] Speaker 01:
So this case would be, it would be a very premature decision to dismiss it at this stage.

[00:12:52] Speaker 05:
And is it clear that the district court did not convert the case to summary judgment?

[00:12:58] Speaker 01:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
The court said it was ruling on a motion to dismiss.

[00:13:01] Speaker 01:
Mr. Jolly even asked for discovery, and the court specifically denied that because it said it was considering a motion to dismiss in this case.

[00:13:13] Speaker 05:
All right.

[00:13:13] Speaker 05:
We'll give you some time on rebuttal.

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:27] Speaker 05:
Good morning, Mr. Sampat.

[00:13:29] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:13:30] Speaker 02:
May it please the Court?

[00:13:34] Speaker 02:
Mr. Sampat, on behalf of the Appellees, the Court should affirm the District Court's dismissal on all grounds.

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
Mr. Jolly failed to sufficiently allege violations of law in the various claims he brought before the District Court, and dismissal was appropriate.

[00:13:49] Speaker 02:
Unless the Court has any objections, I was going to start exactly what my friend did on the other side with the Fifth Amendment claim, and then we'll work our way through it.

[00:13:58] Speaker 02:
Starting with the Fifth Amendment claim, Mr. Jolly does not have a liberty interest based on his classification and his transfer to ADX Florence.

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
The 10th Circuit has said this in Rizak, and that should apply here.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
It is, I just want to be very clear that we're not- How do you square that, though, with Arif?

[00:14:22] Speaker 04:
So you're right about the 10th Circuit.

[00:14:26] Speaker 04:
And it's little odd that we're overruling them on a prison in their jurisdiction.

[00:14:33] Speaker 04:
But we have to apply our precedent.

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
I don't dispute that, Your Honor.

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
What I'm saying is that even under the ARIF test, there's no protected liberty interest.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
And if nothing else, it's almost like a comedy-esque argument of deferring to the test.

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
Why not, though?

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:14:53] Speaker 04:
The conditions in ARIF seemed less

[00:14:57] Speaker 04:
austere than the supermax conditions here.

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
We found a liberty interest.

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
Yes, so I think it's important to note in ARIF that the court there founded a close call on a protected interest, but it wasn't the conditions of confinement that tipped the scale one way or another.

[00:15:17] Speaker 02:
It was the last two prongs of the Arab test, which are the duration of confinement generally and the duration relative to the length of administrative segregation routinely imposed on prisoners serving similar sentences.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
So talking about the duration of confinement generally, the court in Arab said it was concerned about the indefinite CMU designation.

[00:15:43] Speaker 02:
And that follows straight from Wilkinson.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
However, ADX Florence doesn't have, it's not indefinite because there are periodic reviews.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
Those reviews are available.

[00:15:53] Speaker 02:
Mr. Jolly has those reviews available to him.

[00:15:57] Speaker 02:
And he does not allege that his sentence is being extended one way or another, given his time in ADX Florence.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
on the duration relative to the length of administrative segregation with those imposing similar sentences, Mr. Jolly conceives in his complaint and with the exhibits that were attached to there too, that other members of the Aryan Brotherhood were also transferred there and are serving similar sentences.

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
He must allege more.

[00:16:26] Speaker 02:
That's the point.

[00:16:27] Speaker 04:
Sorry, back to duration, I thought the

[00:16:32] Speaker 04:
frequency of review was every six months in both cases, no?

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
I read a ref to say that its main concern on the duration was that it was indefinite.

[00:16:47] Speaker 04:
But if there was indefinite, but in a circumstance where that scheme allowed review every six months, I could be wrong about that.

[00:16:57] Speaker 02:
I could be wrong as well, Your Honor.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
I thought it was that, but I think

[00:17:03] Speaker 02:
But even if this court wanted to not wade into the muddy waters of creating an issue with the 10th Circuit, Mr. Jolly's complaint and the exhibits attached confirm that he received a process.

[00:17:19] Speaker 02:
He was provided notice of a hearing.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
He was able to attend that hearing.

[00:17:24] Speaker 02:
He was able to put on evidence.

[00:17:26] Speaker 02:
He chose not to.

[00:17:27] Speaker 02:
And that's all due process requires.

[00:17:30] Speaker 05:
But if you don't know what you're shooting at, so to speak, how can you defend yourself?

[00:17:37] Speaker 05:
I mean, if all you're told is, we believe you're a member of the area in private then,

[00:17:43] Speaker 05:
But you don't know what the basis of that is, whether it's because you attended a meeting, it's because you did whatever it is.

[00:17:55] Speaker 05:
How is one to defend against that?

[00:17:58] Speaker 02:
So I think there are ways to defend against it.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
I mean, he was provided notice that before the hearing that it was because of his membership in the Aryan Brotherhood that he was being transferred.

[00:18:09] Speaker 02:
He certainly alleges in his complaint that he had knowledge about the cup that was found in his cell.

[00:18:13] Speaker 02:
I know there's a dispute as to whether it was his or not.

[00:18:16] Speaker 02:
However, the Supreme Court has said all that's required is some evidence and the cup by itself could be enough.

[00:18:23] Speaker 02:
But at the end of the day, he does have an ability to challenge those issues.

[00:18:27] Speaker 05:
They didn't tell him that the charge was based on the cup, right?

[00:18:34] Speaker 02:
No, but what it said was it was that Mr. Jolly was found to be a risk to safety, a risk to good order.

[00:18:43] Speaker 02:
He had committed multiple offenses in the last 60 months.

[00:18:46] Speaker 02:
He was a high security level inmate.

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
The membership to the Aryan Brotherhood was noted there, but he was also found to be an escape risk, a willing participant in a potential agency racial war.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
He had planned an assault.

[00:18:58] Speaker 02:
had propensity for future disruptive acts and was a significant threat to others.

[00:19:02] Speaker 02:
That is all in the appendix at pages 59 and 60 in the complaint that he attached.

[00:19:07] Speaker 03:
Wasn't there also some information about him committing a lot of murders that was part of his medical report, but isn't that unfounded?

[00:19:16] Speaker 02:
So it was part of the medical report, obviously, because we're on a motion to dismiss.

[00:19:20] Speaker 02:
We never got to investigate sort of where that where that came from.

[00:19:23] Speaker 02:
However, it was it was made by, I believe, his his mental health therapists and his psychologist psychiatrist that he had conceded.

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
I will note that report also does say that some of the information was from self reporting.

[00:19:37] Speaker 02:
So presumably, Mr. Jolly proffered some information, whether it was about the murders or not, unclear.

[00:19:43] Speaker 03:
Well, apparently he challenges that, so I don't think that he would say that he did them.

[00:19:48] Speaker 03:
He didn't have to worry about whether or not that was all considered as part of this as well.

[00:19:54] Speaker 02:
I think it could be, but Your Honor, I would just point again to 59 and 60, where there's a list of different factors that were taken into consideration on the transfer decision.

[00:20:05] Speaker 03:
But the medical report is mentioned in the hearing report, I believe.

[00:20:09] Speaker 02:
It is mentioned, but even if we want to say that maybe it was erroneous or something like that, and we're obviously not conceding that it was, but the fact that he had engaged in behavior that shows an inability to function in a less restrictive correctional environment, that he was found to be an escapist, these are all different considerations from the issues that he's disputing about whether he committed murders or not.

[00:20:38] Speaker 03:
What do you consider to be Mr. Jolly's process in this case?

[00:20:42] Speaker 03:
Because he's alleging that this was all a predetermined outcome.

[00:20:46] Speaker 02:
So that allegation comes from his statement in the hearing where he says, I was told that this is all a sham, sort of speak.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
I will note that nothing in that hearing report notes that he notes who said that.

[00:21:00] Speaker 02:
He could have been told.

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
He also alleges that in his complaint.

[00:21:03] Speaker 02:
He alleges that in his complaint certainly, but he doesn't say who the source of that information.

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
And that's the problem, right?

[00:21:11] Speaker 02:
Is that it could be from a fellow prisoner or something like that.

[00:21:14] Speaker 02:
And understanding pro se litigants should be given deference, not disputing that.

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
There is a threshold.

[00:21:21] Speaker 02:
Otherwise, we're going to start welcoming a litany of litigation in the District of Columbia.

[00:21:27] Speaker 02:
I think there needs to be some factual dispute or some factual allegation, I should say, that says it came from somebody that's part of this process or something of the like.

[00:21:40] Speaker 03:
So, back to, I believe just Kansas was going down this line.

[00:21:45] Speaker 03:
I'm concerned about the reevaluation process at Florence.

[00:21:49] Speaker 03:
How often is the reevaluation supposed to occur?

[00:21:52] Speaker 03:
Or do you consider consider that Mr. jolly has already been reevaluated and he's in this status.

[00:21:58] Speaker 02:
So your honor, it's a great question.

[00:22:00] Speaker 02:
And I'll say it's not in the briefing.

[00:22:02] Speaker 02:
And if the court would like, we're happy to submit a 28J on this issue specifically.

[00:22:06] Speaker 02:
Mr. Jolly receives periodic reviews every six months.

[00:22:10] Speaker 02:
And my understanding of that process is that every six months, he has the opportunity to actually contest his designations and do all that.

[00:22:17] Speaker 02:
And that is just the process that's available to him.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
And how is he to know about that process?

[00:22:26] Speaker 02:
I believe it's publicly available.

[00:22:28] Speaker 02:
I believe it's also ADX Florence that has a report or statement that informs inmates of that process.

[00:22:36] Speaker 03:
In other words, for a six-month evaluation, are you going to get a notification of some sort by paper that just says, okay, here's your reevaluation period.

[00:22:45] Speaker 03:
Right now, you're designated as such, and here's what you can do to challenge that.

[00:22:49] Speaker 02:
So Your Honor, I'll admit, I don't know the minutiae of that, but I know there is a process.

[00:22:54] Speaker 02:
And what I recall is that it is a forum for inmates to raise objections to raise their issues at those six-month periodic program reviews.

[00:23:05] Speaker 02:
Unless there are any other questions on the Fifth Amendment, I just want to very quickly talk about the eighth.

[00:23:11] Speaker 02:
Which is that Mr. Jolly's challenge here is really to transfer not to any sort of medical issues that he's facing.

[00:23:21] Speaker 02:
I think all of that is confirmed by the relief that he seeks in the complaint, which is injunctive in the sense of get rid of my designation and potentially transfer me and nothing else.

[00:23:32] Speaker 03:
I'm not this circuit that we will be creating a circuit split with respect to the liberty interest and the solitary confinement that it may constitute a liberty interest.

[00:23:44] Speaker 03:
The fact that you would be in solitary confinement.

[00:23:46] Speaker 02:
So I'll note that Mr. Jolly isn't in solitary confinement.

[00:23:50] Speaker 02:
He's in general population.

[00:23:51] Speaker 02:
I know my friend on the other side equates that to solitary confinement in the supermax context.

[00:23:58] Speaker 02:
But creating a circumsplit, I mean, this court has said on at least a couple of occasions that it doesn't want to create circumsplits on issues and tries to avoid them as much as possible.

[00:24:10] Speaker 02:
I think in this case,

[00:24:11] Speaker 02:
where the facility is not within its jurisdiction is not located here to create a circus, but with the tensor, it would be would be a tall order.

[00:24:22] Speaker 02:
Any further questions?

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
No, thank you so much.

[00:24:25] Speaker 02:
We asked the court firm.

[00:24:30] Speaker 05:
All right, we'll give you 2 minutes and rebuttal.

[00:24:33] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:24:34] Speaker 01:
I'd like to start with the last thing my friend said, that Mr. Jolly is not currently in solitary confinement, but in the general population.

[00:24:42] Speaker 01:
General population at Attics Florence is the most restrictive level of confinement at Attics Florence.

[00:24:49] Speaker 01:
You can see that on their website.

[00:24:50] Speaker 01:
You can see that in Jolly's allegations.

[00:24:52] Speaker 01:
That is flat out incorrect.

[00:24:54] Speaker 01:
The Fourth Circuit and Porter easily rejected the exact same allegations there.

[00:24:59] Speaker 01:
And the key here is that all of the studies that we've been talking about, they examine the exact same conditions of confinement that, of course, Mr. Jolly is subject to.

[00:25:10] Speaker 01:
Completely sensory deprivation, Your Honor.

[00:25:13] Speaker 01:
Not just being stuck in a small cell.

[00:25:16] Speaker 01:
You're surrounded by gray walls.

[00:25:17] Speaker 01:
You have double steel doors that you can't even hear the other inmates speak.

[00:25:22] Speaker 01:
No opportunities for work, no opportunities for education.

[00:25:26] Speaker 01:
This is absolutely solitary confinement by any measure available.

[00:25:31] Speaker 01:
Going to Rezak.

[00:25:33] Speaker 01:
Regardless of what Rezak decided and the fact that this court in a ref explicitly denied to apply the same approach that Rezak did, Rezak was decided on summary judgment.

[00:25:44] Speaker 01:
The court in that case denied the government's motion to dismiss.

[00:25:49] Speaker 01:
There is no possible circuit split here in any case imaginable.

[00:25:54] Speaker 01:
And finally, the fact that this case is not on summary judgment also goes to the due process allegations.

[00:26:00] Speaker 01:
All agree, as my colleague pointed out, that there are factual allegations on both sides here.

[00:26:05] Speaker 01:
But as the Fourth Circuit said in Thorpe, whether a given process is meaningful in practice is a question of fact.

[00:26:13] Speaker 01:
to be decided on summary judgment.

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
The Department of Corrections there also asked the court to take judicial notice of the procedures that are posted on the website, but the court declined to do that because the core allegation was that the prisoner did not, in fact, receive the process promised to him.

[00:26:32] Speaker 03:
On the eighth amendment claim with respect to the subjective prong dealing with deliberate indifference, tell me about your view of the sufficiency of the allegations.

[00:26:40] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:26:41] Speaker 01:
Just as an initial matter, they have waived an argument because they present absolutely no argument to that in their response brief.

[00:26:49] Speaker 01:
And the first circuit is Centron decided the case based on the exact same circumstance because the other party didn't brief it.

[00:26:55] Speaker 01:
They didn't even get to that prong.

[00:26:57] Speaker 01:
at the motion to dismiss.

[00:26:59] Speaker 01:
However, Farmer says the U.S.

[00:27:02] Speaker 01:
Supreme Court and Farmer said a fact finder may conclude that a prison official knew of substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.

[00:27:10] Speaker 01:
And the Third Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, the First Circuit have all said that risk is obvious based on the mountain of scientific evidence on all these recent court cases.

[00:27:19] Speaker 01:
And I will say one last thing, the BOP itself has recognized the obviousness of this risk because in their own manual, they require a mental health evaluation, your honor, before a prisoner can be sent to Florence.

[00:27:33] Speaker 01:
And they specifically say that currently diagnosed prisoners cannot be sent to Florence.

[00:27:37] Speaker 01:
So even they themselves have recognized that there's a substantial risk of mental health issues.

[00:27:45] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:27:46] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:27:48] Speaker 05:
Miss Ellis, I'm having problems with your name.

[00:27:52] Speaker 05:
Can you please help?

[00:27:55] Speaker 01:
Of course, Your Honor.

[00:27:55] Speaker 01:
It's Alex Ava.

[00:27:57] Speaker 05:
Miss Alex Ava, you were appointed by the court to represent the appellant in this case, and the court thanks you for your very able assistance.

[00:28:05] Speaker 05:
We'll take the matter under advisement.