Opinion ID: 719748
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Currently Applicable Law

Text: 16 Under currently applicable constitutional standards, Nerren has stated a claim for the denial of his substantive due process rights. Recently, we held that a state official's episodic act or omission violates a pretrial detainee's due process right to medical care if the official acts with subjective deliberate indifference to the detainee's rights. 25 We then defined subjective deliberate indifference as subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of serious medical harm, followed by a response of deliberate indifference. 26 17 In the instant case, Nerren has alleged that his face and chest were marred with abrasions, he was in pain, and he informed the Arresting Officers that he needed medical attention. Moreover, the police had subjective knowledge that Nerren had recently been involved in a multiple vehicle injury accident. Nevertheless, after allegedly acknowledging Nerren's request of and need for medical attention, the Arresting Officers denied his request for the express reason that he had fled the scene of the accident without regard for the plight of the other victims. Accepting Nerren's allegations as true, the Arresting Officers had subjective knowledge of Nerren's need of medical attention yet turned a deaf ear to his request. If the evidence at trial supports these allegations, a reasonable juror could conclude that the Arresting Officers were deliberately indifferent to Nerren's constitutional right to medical attention. 27 Thus, Nerren has cleared the first hurdle of qualified immunity: Under currently applicable law, Nerren has alleged a violation of a clearly established right. 18