Does involuntary exposure to non-medical substances constitute unreasonable force?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . Question: Does involuntary exposure to any non-medically necessary medication, steroid, | chemical cleaning compound, schedule II drugs, toxin or any unidentified substance that is intentionally concealed within a food item to cause injury, provided through a food service program of a public entity constitute a forcible administration within the meaning of the “unreasonable “ provision of the 4% Amendment and a form of, “ use of force “ prohibited by the constitution and federal statue ? . Question: Is a conspiracy to enforce a code of silence a cognizable claim in a 42 U.S.C 1983 action? Can Defendants in separate but related cases establish a pattern, custom or usage and serve as the basis for a civil conspiracy cause of action. . Question: Did the cases of U.S. v. Georgia, 546 at 155-160 and Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S 509,520-521, establish a means for official capacity damage claims applicable to disabled prisoner complaints ? Question: Is the supervisory liability standard established in the case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S.129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 applicable in civil conspiracy claims ? Question: Can intentional infliction of emotional distress form an independent cause of action for an official capacity damages claim under the rubric of disparate treatment prohibitions pursuant to federal disability statue. Question: Is the intentional triggering and or orchestration of conditions for the purpose of exacerbating the illness symptoms , with the intent of causing sever impairment of an inmate who suffers from a mental disorder, a form of psychological abuse under the 8th amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment? ii | Question: Is a defendant who is aware of an individuals mental health diagnosis and history of cognitive dysfunction brought on by high levels of emotional distress, liable once a defendant makes a conscious decision to intentionally embark upon a course of conduct purposely designed to psychologically terrorize, harass, frighten or otherwise bring about such an impairment ? Question: Does intentional exploitation of the petitioners vulnerabilities and susceptibility to condition regression illustrate action taken solely by reason of the mental disability? | Question: Is the intentional contamination of a food item prepared and served by a prison program at the expense of the Istate and or the the intentional tampering with prepackaged food items purchased om the prison commissary program, when utilized as the vehicle through which a prisoner is exposed to dangerous substances classify as an “ hazardous activity” within the dekinition of strict liability jurisprudence? Is there an express or implied warranty of safely and usability attached to a prisoners food sources? Question: Does the utilization of a L preparation equipment and facilities to orchestrate intentional food contamination, quality as a “ Use of Tangible personal or real property” within the definition of the Texas hot Claim Act Sec. 101.001-101.067, providing consent to sue effectively a waiver for intentional torts claims? Question: Can insufficient vei officer trainings, specifically in relation to, appropriate behavioral parameter, which standardize officer conduct, regarding how to safely interact with mentally ill origoners, as not to intentionally create conditions which exacerbate illness symptoms, servb as a contributing cause to officer misconduct, i.e. (Conduct initiated to intentionally deuse physical pain or psychological distress )? RELATED CASES United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Prescott v. Abbott, et. al. Action NO. 1950538. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Prescott v. Doe, et. al., Action NO. 21-20151. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Prescott v. UTMB, Action NO. 21-40856. United States District Court for Est. Dist. of TEX. Prescott v. Catoe, et. al., Action NO. 4:20-169. United States District Court for Est. Dist. of TEX. Prescott v. Denton Cnty., et. al.,