Opinion ID: 1640607
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sheriff Hale's personal participation

Text: Jenkins argues that her second amended complaint alleges that Hodge's medical condition while she was at the Jefferson County jail was serious, that Sheriff Hale was aware of Hodge's condition, and that Sheriff Hale failed or refused to obtain medical treatment for Hodge. The complaint further states that [o]n or about November 28, 2004, [Hodge] made a written request for immediate medical care because her lower abdomen was extremely swollen and because her bowels were not moving. Jenkins's brief at 12-13. She also alleges that at the time Hodge was taken to the emergency room, Hodge had been constipated for three weeks, had not voided in three days and had suffered from fever and chills for four to five days. Jenkins's brief at 12. The complaint further alleges that [Sheriff Hale] ... [was] aware of Hodge's condition but intentionally, knowingly, and/recklessly denied Hodge medical treatment for the condition and that [Sheriff] Hale ... [was] aware that Hodge had a serious and/or life threatening medical condition but failed to provide Hodge with medical treatment for her said condition. Jenkins's brief at 13. Finally, Jenkins alleges that the failure of the above named defendants [including Sheriff Hale] to provide Hodge with medical care proximately caused Hodge's death. Jenkins's brief, Exhibit B. The case law [has] made it clear that an official acts with deliberate indifference when he knows that an inmate is in serious need of medical care, but he fails or refuses to obtain medical treatment for the inmate. Lancaster v. Monroe County, 116 F.3d 1419, 1425 (11th Cir.1997). As noted above, in determining whether Jenkins has allege[d] the violation of [this] clearly established constitutional right we look to the complaint, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Youth Servs., 880 So.2d at 403 (emphasis omitted). The matter before us is Sheriff Hale's clear legal right under Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., to have the § 1983 claim against him dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted; therefore, we do not address the merits of the claim. On a motion to dismiss a § 1983 claim because of qualified immunity, this Court looks to the complaint to determine only whether the `complaint... allege[s] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.' Alabama Dep't of Youth Servs., 880 So.2d at 402 (quoting St. George, 285 F.3d at 1337, quoting in turn Chesser v. Sparks, 248 F.3d 1117, 1121 (11th Cir.2001)). [A] jail official violates a pre-trial detainee's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process if he acts with deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of the detainee, Lancaster, 116 F.3d at 1425 (footnote omitted). Jenkins has alleged in her complaint that Hodge had a serious medical need, that Sheriff Hale was aware of that need, and that he acted with deliberate indifference to that need. Therefore, we cannot conclude at this stage of the proceedings that Sheriff Hale is entitled to a dismissal of that portion of Jenkins § 1983 claim in which she alleges that Sheriff Hale personally deprived Hodge of her Fourteenth Amendment rights because her complaint alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.