time getting the class certified.” Or, Arg. at 8:53-9:01. 3 . Moreover, unlike in Thompson, the plaintiffs here were both pretrial detainees (to whom the Fourteenth Amendment applies) and convicted prisoners (to whom the Eighth Amendment applies). See Or. Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003). As we have previously noted in an unpublished decision, "[o]ur holding [in Thompson] that a prison official’s failure to provide a mattress or bed for a pre-trial detainee ... violated the Fourteenth Amendment ... does not support [the] argument that [convicted prisoners] ha[ve] a similar, clearly-established right under the Eighth Amendment." Schroeder v. Kaplan, 60 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1055, 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. Neven, 678 Fed.Appx. 490, 493 (9th
holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established holding that use of a victim impact statement during sentencing violated the eighth amendment holding that prisoner copayment plan was not violative of the eighth amendment holding no eighth amendment violation where prisoner was placed in a strip cell without clothes the water in the cell was turned off and the mattress removed and prisoners bedding clothing legal mail and hygienic supplies were withheld holding that it was not clearly established in 2002 that forcing a prisoner to sleep without a mattress but with a bed and a blanket violated the eighth amendment