Whether government officials' statements of intent to continue violating an individual's constitutional rights can establish subjective intent for deliberate indifference and retaliatory intent claims

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Respondents are prison officials who deliberately left Petitioner Uvaldo Guzman in a cage approximately three (3) feet by three (3) feet in floor area and seven (7) feet high for nineteen (19) hours, during which Respondents did not provide Petitioner with access to food, water, or a bathroom. Also during that period, Respondents repeatedly taunted Petitioner, with taunts such as “Are you still here?” “Youre going to stay in there,” “Just don’t go nowhere,” and “I got you where I want you.” Petitioner was left in the cage after meeting with his attorney's investigator. Petitioner brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Respondents’ conduct as violating the Eighth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, bringing claims for deliberate indifference and retaliation. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States concluded that neither the retaliatory intent nor the causation element of the retaliation cause of action were met, and that the subjective intent element of the claim for deliberate indifference was not met. The questions presented are: 1. When government officials state their intent to continue to violate an __individual’s constitutional rights while actually violating them, can those statements be taken at face value for purposes of determining the subjective intent of the government official in regard to a claim for deliberate indifference and for purposes of determining the retaliatory intent element of a retaliation claim? i 2. Are government officials taunts of an individual during their violation of the individual’s constitutional rights sufficient to support the causation element of a retaliation claim where the taunts are ongoing during the violation? ii