Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(£)(8) and the Due Process Clause permit a district court to srant summary judgment against a non-moving party on a ground that the moving party never raised—i.e., a ground identified by the court sua sponte—without first providing notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, and whether a court of appeals may affirm such a grant by holding that the non-movant “waived” her right to respond to a ground she was never given the opportunity to address in the first place.

Whether a court of appeals violates the Seventh Amendment and this Court’s decisions in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), when it affirms summary judgment by (a) drawing factual inferences against the non-moving party, (b) making its own factual findings based on a selective reading of the record, and (c) treating as “waived on appeal’ claims the non-movant fully preserved and supported in the district court.

2

1. Does this Court’s precedent in Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross, apply to Eighth Amendment challenges when determining whether maladministration of an execution protocol amounts to cruel and unusual punishment where inmates are not seeking an alternate method of execution, only seeking that the approved method is followed?

ii