Whether a pretrial detainee alleging Fourteenth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs must show subjective intent or objective reasonableness

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a pretrial detainee alleging Fourteenth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must show that an individual defendant had the subjective intent to deprive the plaintiff of needed medical care, as nine circuits continue to hold based upon Eighth Amendment precedent, or whether Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence should be altered in cases relating to the provision of medical care, by replacing the well-established subjective intent requirement with the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, traditionally used for excessive force claims, as was at issue in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015). 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s vacation of the district court’s summary judgment order, despite no proof of a policy or custom which posed a substantial risk of serious harm with respect to inmate medical care, conflicts with this Court’s municipal liability precedent in Monell v. Dep’t of Social and Health Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) and its progeny. ll PARTIES TO PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6