Whether deliberate indifference should be analyzed under the balancing framework of the substantial risk of harm test announced by this Court rather than the substantial injury requirement test announced in Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ao | (1). WHETHER DELIBERATE INDIFERENCE SHOULD BE ANALYZED UNDER THE BALANCING FRAMEWORK | OF THE SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM TEST ANNOUNCED BY “Nee COURT RATHER THAN THE SUBSTANTIAL INJURY REQUIREMENT TEST ANNOUNCED IN WooD V, HOUSEWRIGHT, 900 F.3D 1332 (2) WHETHER THE COURTS DECISION IN TOGUCHT V. CHUNG INVALIDATES A PRISONER'S RICHT TO BE FREE FROM THE "RISK OF HARM" AND THE REGULATIONS THAT PROTECT A PRISONER'S HEALTH AND SAFETY. (3). WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRRORED IN HOLDING THAT GAINES HAD NOT STATED AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM IN WHICH RELIEF COULD BE : GRANTED BY ALLEGING THAT DR. M. INTERIAN, D.D.S. WAS DELIBERATELY INDIFERENT TO HIS SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS. | | . | | 1 ). WHETHER DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE SHOULD BE ANALYZED UNDER THE BALANCING FRAME WORK 2 F THE SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM TEST ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT RATHER ‘THAN THE SUBSTAN3. /ITIAL INJURY REQUIREMENT TEST ANNOUNCED IN WOOD V. HOUSEWRIGHT, 900 F. 2D 1332. | 5. |b). WHETHER THE COURTS DECISION IN TOGUCHI V. CHUNG INVALIDATES A PRISONER'S RIGHT TO | 6 E FREE FROM THE "RISK OF HARM" AND THE REGULATIONS THAT PROTECT A PRISONER'S: HEALTH 7 SAFETY. 8 . of 9 3). WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERRORED IN HOLDING THAT CAINES ! 10 {HAD NOT STATED AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM IN WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED. BY ALLEGING |" 1] |/THAT DR. M. INTERIAN, D.D.S. WAS DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT TO HIS SERIOUS MEDICAL NEED. . wm |} . i ! 14 . "