1. Whetehr injecting a prisoner with insulin without knowing bis immediate bllod sqgar level constitutes deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, where such act or mission can result in rapid onset hypoglycemia; causing medical explications up to and including seizures, cam, train damge and death; or if not enogjn insulin is injected it can result in typerglycenria; causing long-term complications including kidney disease, heart disease, amputation of limbs, and blindness.

2. Whether a prisoner need only shew that protected speech was a motivating factor " for retaliation, at which point the burden of proof shifts and the defendant trust show that the adverse action would have been taken anyway; or whether the minority of circuits are correct in holding that a prison plaintiff must prove that '' but for " the retaliation, the adverse action would not have occurred.[Hie later placing a higjntaned bidden of proof on die prison plaintiff.]

3. Whether a prisoner has a right to refuse unwanted and medically unjustified " treatment," in the form of ccmnissary restrictions, which prevents the prisoner from purchasing food or drinks.

Whether injecting a prisoner with insulin without knowing his immediate blood sugar level constitutes deliberate indifference to serious medical needs