before photocopying them, (2) placing a copy of his lawsuit in his classification file, (3) confining him in the B-2 unit without due process and in retaliation for submitting ICFs and filing lawsuits, (4) maintaining unconstitutional conditions in B-2, and (5) forcing him back to F-pod without regard to his safety. Purkey also sought summary judgment on several of his claims. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment and denied Purkey summary judgment. Purkey appeals. ■ Discussion “We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard used by the district court.” Garrison v. Gambro, Inc., 428 F.3d 933, 935 (10th Cir.2005). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, deposit 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (<HOLDING>); (4) concluding that even if confinement in
recognizing a liberty interest in reasonably safe conditions of confinement holding that mentally retarded individuals who are involuntarily committed to a state institution have a constitutional right to reasonably safe conditions of confinement under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment because pjersons who have been involuntarily committed are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish holding that juvenile pretrial detention implicates due process rights holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process holding that punitive conditions of pretrial confinement implicate due process