THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss issues surrounding civil rights suits brought against law enforcement personnel and agencies. Volume 2 of the casebook covers the Sixth through the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. * * * Individuals in state custody have a constitutional right to adequate medical treatment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). For inmates serving custodial sentences following a criminal conviction, that right is part of the Eighth Amendment's guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment. Id. However, pretrial detainees have not yet been convicted of a crime and therefore are not subject to punishment by the state. Accordingly, their rights arise under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-36, 335 n.16, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Claims brought by convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment are governed by what we have called a "subjective deliberate indifference" standard. Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1122; see Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 935 F.3d 757, 786 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam), cert. denied sub nom. ID DOC, et al. v. Edmo, No. 19-1280, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 610, 208 L.Ed.2d 197 (U.S. Oct. 13, 2020). Under this standard, a prison official will be liable for disregarding an inmate's serious medical needs only if he was both "aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists" and actually "dr[e]w the inference." Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). Thus, a prison official who "should have been aware" of a medically related risk to an inmate, but in fact was not, "has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk." Id. (quoting Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)). Sandoval v. County of San Diego, 985 F. 3d 657 (9th Cir. 2021)