Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly applied the first step of the Egbert v. Boule test by holding that a case involving a federal detention center's response to a prisoner's non-life-threatening back injury presents no "new Bivens context" compared to Carlson v. Green, which involved a life-ending medical emergency, and whether alternative remedial structures such as the Bureau of Prisons' Administrative Remedy Program should be considered at the first or second step of the Egbert analysis.

Whether the Supreme Court should recognize a Bivens cause of action for a prisoner's medical treatment claim involving non-life-threatening injuries in a federal detention center