Opinion ID: 2982638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Law Governing Section 1983 Claims

Text: Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a private right of action against anyone who, under color of law, deprives a citizen of a right secured by the Constitution. Qualified immunity generally shields government officials, such as the individual defendants here, from such claims unless a jury could find that a constitutional right has been violated and the right is clearly established. E.g., McKenna v. Edgell, 617 F.3d 432, 438 (6th Cir. 2010). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, pretrial detainees have a substantive due process right to adequate medical treatment. City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983). The right is “at least as great” as the analogous Eighth Amendment right that convicted prisoners possess. Id.; see also Garretson v. City of Madison Heights, 407 F.3d 789, 795 (6th Cir. 2005); Watkins v. City of Battle Creek, 273 F.3d 682, 685-86 (6th Cir. 2001). Our circuit analyzes the Fourteenth Amendment right using the same test as governs the Eighth Amendment right. Watkins, 273 F.3d at 686 (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) and Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-37 (1994)). In short, both prisoners and pretrial detainees have a right not to have prison officials act with deliberate indifference toward their serious medical needs, health, or safety. Id.; LeMarbe v. Wisneski, 266 F.3d 429, 435-36 (6th Cir. 2001). Such indifference can be manifested by prison doctors or medical staff in response to a detainee’s medical needs. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05. 8 Case No. 13-6370, Sours v. Big Sandy Reg’l Jail Auth. As in other constitutional contexts, “deliberate indifference” that amounts to a constitutional violation falls somewhere in the middle of the culpability spectrum. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835-36; see also Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 849-50 (1998). “[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence,” but it also involves something less than acting or failing to act “for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. Rather, in this context, it entails a circumstance in which the prison official denies an inmate humane conditions of confinement when “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837. Turning to application of the law, we address the claims against Nurse Allison, beginning with the two components of a deliberate indifference claim.