1. Did the Sixth Circuit depart from this Court's decision in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) in denying qualified immunity to Petitioners, despite the lack of evidence that Petitioners had actual knowledge of the substantial risk of serious harm, because they failed to act on information suggesting the need for medication at some point in the future?

2. Did the Sixth Circuit depart from this Court's decision in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) in denying qualified immunity to Petitioners, by finding that a medical response that creates a brief deprivation of a commonplace medication unnecessary to staving off any apparently imminent patient risk is unreasonable and runs afoul of the Constitution?

3. Did the Sixth Circuit depart from this Court's decisions in Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822 (2018) and Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015) and numerous other cases by considering clearly established law at too high a level of generality rather than giving particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case?

Did the Sixth Circuit depart from this Court's decision in Farmer v. Brennan by improperly denying qualified immunity to Petitioners based on insufficient evidence of actual knowledge of substantial medical risk?