1. Whether a pretrial de tainee alleging Fourteenth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under 42 U.S. C. § 1983 must show that an individual defendant had the subjective intent todeprive the plaintiff of needed medical care, as ninecircuits continue to hold based upon EighthAmendment precedent, or whether FourteenthAmendment jurisprudence should be altered in casesrelating to the provision of medical care, by replacingthe well-established subjective intent requirement withthe Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness"standard, traditionally used for excessive force claims,as was at issue in Kingsley v. Hendrickson , 135 S. Ct.2466 (2015).

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit's vacation of the district court's summary judgment order, despite noproof of a policy or custom which posed a substantialrisk of serious harm with respect to inmate medicalcare, conflicts with this Court's municipal liabilityprecedent in Monell v. Dep't of Social and HealthServices, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) and its progeny.

Whether a pretrial detainee alleging Fourteenth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs must show subjective intent or objective reasonableness