Should the Eleventh Circuit's reinvention of the Fourteenth Amendment standard for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs be permitted?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should the Eleventh Circuit be permitted to reinvent the Fourteenth Amendment standard for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by ruling as a matter of law that jail officials who claim to have disbelieved statements that an inmate was suicidal were not deliberately indifferent, which not only adds an impermissible gloss to that standard but violates this Court’s mandate in Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) that all inferences be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party and the credibility of self-serving statements are the sole province of the jury? 2. Does 28 U.S.C. §1367 require a district court to weigh the factors set forth in United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) — and to articulate the process by which it weighed such factors — in exercising discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed when there are substantive differences between state and federal law, and the interests of federalism dictate that state courts be the ultimate arbiter of state law questions?