at 399. In so holding, the majority of the en banc court rejected the argument of the dissenters that these allegations were insufficient as a matter of law to deter an inmate from pursuing a lawsuit. Id. at 403 (Suhrheinrich, J., dissenting); see also id. at 408 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). In contrast to Bell’s complaints, which presented a close case, the en banc court observed that it “need not pause for long in the case of plaintiff X: his allegations, if true, certainly meet the standard. Harassment, physical threats, and transfer to the area of the prison used to house mentally disturbed inmates, especially combined with the conditions allegedly present there, would likely have a strong deterrent effect.” Id. at 398; 'see also Herron v. Harrison, 203 F.3d 410, 416 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Based upon the foregoing principles, we
holding that 120 days notice was satisfied by 30 days work plus 90 days pay holding that there was no basis for adverse inference instruction for failure to produce emails until five days before trial holding that the record did not compel a finding of persecution where an alien was detained for five or six days holding that committing prisoner to administrative segregation for five days was adverse holding that due process requires that a hearing be held within a reasonable time after confinement to administrative segregation and finding that five days plainly satisfied this requirement