Does extended, indefinite solitary confinement of an atypical duration, under some circumstances, violate the Eighth Amendment?

question presented is: Does extended, indefinite solitary confinement of an atypical duration, under some circumstances, violate the Eighth Amendment, as at least five circuits have held, or can solitary confinement never violate the Eighth Amendment? II. Mr. Striz alleges that the periodic reviews of his solitary confinement are a meaningless charade where, for more than a “.: decade, officials have acknowledged documentation in Mr. Striz's prison file*that}heis no longer a gang member, yet continued to cite that invalid excuse to extend his decades of solitary confinement, only to abruptly change that excuse in 2019 when ordered to answer Mr. Striz's §1983 complaint. The courts below held that these proceedings meet the "constitutional minima" of the 8 . ii Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. * The second question presented is two-fold: (a) Does the Due Process Clause require meaningful review : + hearings where prison officials are open to the possibility of . releasing the prisoner from isolation, as some circuits have held; or does a perfunctory hearing with a predetermined result, regardless of the evidence, satisfy Constitutional minima of due process, as the below court’ held? and, (b) If this is sufficient, as the below court held, that a perfunctory review with a predetermined outcome meets the GConstitutional minima of due process, the followup question presented is: Are prisoners entitled to equality under the law? Because equality goes both ways; and if the law applies equally to prisoners, then conversely, the law as appiied to prisoners also applies equally to unincarcerated citizens who, if subject to the same farcical administrative due process as state prisoners, will more easily become prisoners of the administrative state themselves. iii.