The Court (Sykes/Easterbrook/Rovner, with Sykes writing and Rovner dissenting) affirms SJ against a prisoner for his claims about his treatment while in solitary confinement. The majority’s opinion chiefly focuses on the fact that on appeal, the prisoner (who was by then expertly represented by Danny Greenfield) raises “an extensive and sophisticated attack” on solitary confinement itself, Slip Op. at 10, whereas in the district court, the prisoner’s filings (after being denied recruitment of counsel) were unsophisticated, focused on aspects of his conditions without sophisticatedly tying them together, and ended with the phrase “I could not finish.” Slip Op. at 8. The majority finds the former claim is forfeited, and the claim briefed below failed to satisfy the subjective prong of the deliberate indifference standard. I think the majority’s opinion unfortunately is likely to be cited against prisoners bringing conditions cases for some time to come. Rovner dissents, agreeing that the solitary confinement claim was forfeited but dissenting because she would have reversed on the yard restrictions.