set forth in the Court’s Eighth Amendment caselaw. .Indeed, since Vance, we have continued to apply Farmer to allegations of unconstitutional conditions of confinement. See Townsend v. Cooper, 759 F.3d 678, 685, 689 (7th Cir. 2014) (applying Farmer .to claims brought against the warden and other prison officials who were involved in the decision to impose a behavior action plan that resulted in unconstitutional .conditions of confinement). Consistent With our approach in Townsend, other courts of appeals have determined that, post-Iqbal, Farmer’s deliberate indifference standard continues to govern claims of unconstitutional conditions of confinement brought against supervisory prison officials. See Barkes v. First Correctional Medical, Inc., 766 F.3d 307, 316-20 (3d Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>), reversed on other grounds under the name
holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation holding that deliberate indifference standard for imposing supervisory liability based on an eighth amendment violation is consistent with iqbal and collecting cases holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs holding colon standard is unaffected by iqbal in deliberate indifference case because iqbal involved discriminatory intent holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs