Mr. Grissom has been held in solitary confinement since 1996. In 2007, Mr. Grissom filed a pro se lawsuit, claiming that “excessive isolation”—i.e., solitary confinement—violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. With respect to due process, the district court concluded that Mr. Grissom lacked a liberty interest in avoiding prolonged solitary confinement and, accordingly, was not due any process. As to the Eighth Amendment, the district court thought the privations of solitary insufficiently serious to amount to a denial of life’s necessities. Nor did 11 years of solitary present a sufficient risk of harm to be constitutionally actionable. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. In 2015, by which point Mr. Grissom had been in solitary for 19 years, he sued again, raising similar claims. Grissom also alleged that his solitary confinement violated the Equal Protection Clause because the sanction is disproportionately applied against people of color. After his suit was dismissed, largely on the same grounds as before, we filed an appeal on his behalf. We are co-counseling Mr. Grissom’s case with Eimer Stahl.