Whether the Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim should be evaluated under an objective or subjective standard

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Eleventh Circuit granted qualified immunity to several Brevard County Jail officials on Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment claim that he was subjected to appalling and inhumane conditions of confinement while in pretrial detention. Specifically, Petitioner alleged that he, with as many as seven other men, was confined in a cell that was covered in human excrement and bodily fluids, infrequently and _ ineffectively cleaned, and inadequately cooled and ventilated. These conditions were exacerbated by the lack of ready access to soap, toilet paper, and eating utensils, and the fact that Petitioner was forced to sleep on a mat directly on the waste-covered floor, so that Petitioner was eating, sleeping, and living with constant exposure to human waste. In fact, these conditions were so severe that, on one occasion, they induced a panic attack, causing Petitioner to repeatedly bang his head against a metal doorframe until he _ needed _ stitches. Respondent Corporal John Wright watched the entire episode and laughed. The case presents two questions: (1) Whether, consistent with Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), a Fourteenth Amendment claim brought by a _ pretrial detainee should be evaluated under an objective or subjective standard, a question on which the federal courts of appeals have split. (2) Whether, at the time of Petitioner’s confinement, the right of a detainee not to be ll confined in conditions lacking basic sanitation was clearly established under Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978), Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981), and myriad court of appeal decisions, or, alternatively, whether Petitioner’s conditions of confinement were so obviously unconstitutional that any reasonable officer would have recognized them as such.