1). WHETHER DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE SHOULD BE ANALYZED UNDER THE BALANCING FRAME WORK
3F THE SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM TEST ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT RATHER THAN THE SUBSTAN
TIAL INJURY REQUIREMENT TEST ANNOUNCED IN WOOD V. HOUSEWRIGHT, 900 F. 2D 1332.

2). WHETHER THE COURTS DECISION IN TOGUCHI V. CHUNG INVALIDATES A PRISONER'S RIGHT TO
BE FREE FROM THE "RISK OF HARM" AND THE REGULATIONS THAT PROTECT A PRISONER'S HEALTH
AND SAFETY.

3). WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERRORED IN HOLDING THAT CAINES :
HAD NOT STATED AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM IN WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED. BY ALLEGING '
THAT DR. M. INTER IAN, D.D.S. WAS DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT TO HIS SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS

Whether deliberate indifference should be analyzed under the balancing framework of the substantial risk of harm test announced by this Court rather than the substantial injury requirement test announced in Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332