Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding the law was not clearly established as to the conduct of Defendants Espinoza and Williams and in concluding that Petitioner's case was not a case in which the constitutional violation was obvious?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding the law was not clearly established as to the conduct of Defendants Espinoza and Williams and in concluding that Petitioner's case was not a case in which the : constitutional violation was obvious? II Whether the usual deliberate indifference standard of Farmer v. Brennon, 501 U.S. 825 (1994) applies to Eighth Amendment claims against prison officials who knew of but ignored a substantial risk of harm to a prisoner's health and safety, and whether the Tenth Circuit, like the Sixth Circuit in Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) applied the wrong legal standard to Petitioner's claims that Defendants Williams, Clinkinbeard and Espinoza acted with deliberate indifference to his health and safety? III Whether the Court of Appeals misapprehended summary judgment and qualified immunity standards and failed to view evidence in the light most favorable to Petitioner as the non-moving party? IV Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not conducting its own independant. de novo review of the directed verdict issue, and does the transcript of Petitioner's cross-examination testimony demonstrates he presented sufficient evidence and sufficient disagreement requiring submission to the jury? . Vv Whether the Defendants obtained a jury verdict in their favor by the knowing use of contradictory and perjured testimony, and whether the District Court was biased towards Petitioner and improperly influenced the testimony, depriving Petitioner or neutrality and due process? i