1. Whether this Court should resolve the confusion in the circuit courts about what constitutes "clearly established" law with a clear rule and guidance from this Court that allows a legitimate constitutional claim to proceed under Section 1983 whenever the circumstances give government actors ample opportunity to understand how the relevant legal doctrine applies, as the First, Second, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits have decided, rather than requiring factually identical precedent, as the Tenth Circuit required in this case?

2. Whether the Tenth Circuit's decision that the law must be clearly established to support a Monell claim for deliberate indifference is inconsistent with the settled law of this Court?

3. Whether Petitioner overcome qualified immunity by showing that the jailers were deliberately indifferent to Petitioner's clearly established rights, because the violation was patently obvious and sufficiently similar prior precedent gave the jailers fair notice their conduct violated Petitioner's constitutional rights?

Whether the law was clearly established