did nothing to decide the proper sequence in which the issues in this case must proceed. 5 . Although most of the plaintiff class consists of pretrial detainees, but Jail No. 3 also contains convicted misdemeanants. Where housed together, courts will typically accord both groups the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure that the pretrial detainees do not suffer any denial of their due process rights. See, e.g., Fischer v. Winter, 564 F.Supp. 281, 298 (N.D.Cal.1983). 6 . As a matter of standing, plaintiffs also must demonstrate some evidence of actual or imminent harm, see Lewis v. Casey, - U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2179, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), or subjection to excessive risk of injury. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32-34, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2480-81, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Although the Supreme Court found nothing
holding that an eighth amendment plaintiff did not have to prove that he was actually injured by exposure to raw sewage only that such exposure posed a serious health risk holding that a prisoner who suffered lacerations on his left leg and finger an abrasion on his head bruises and red welts on his back stated a claim under the eighth amendment because the prisoner provided evidence in support of the other whitley factors holding that prisoner copayment plan was not violative of the eighth amendment holding that prisoner stated a claim for relief under the eighth amendment for his exposure to secondhand smoke even though he reported no illness holding that plaintiff stated eighth amendment claim where he alleged exposure to ets causing aggravation of chronic asthma