The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30485
Summary Calendar
GERALD CLARKE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL HEGMANN, ETC.; ET AL,
Defendants,
MICHAEL HEGMANN, Medical Authority at Hunt Correctional Center,
CALDWELL, a treating physician at Hunt; G. WALES, RN, a nursing
supervisor at Hunt; G. STAFFORD, RN, a nurse at Hunt; BARRINGER,
a nurse at Hunt; S.K. CORNELIUS, a nurse at Hunt; COOPER, a nurse
at Hunt; EASTER, a nurse at Hunt; MARY ROBICHAUX, RN, a nurse at
Hunt, STEPHEN WAGUESPACK, an employee of the Medical Department
at Hunt; EHRENSENG, a contract doctor at Hunt; DENISE HARRISON,
Director of Nursing at Hunt; M. HAMPTON, RN, a nurse at Hunt;
BARAI, a contract doctor at Hunt; BARBIN, a contract doctor at
Hunt; ELOISE PARQUET, Medical Administrator at Hunt,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-557-D
--------------------
January 15, 2003
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
The appellants, a prison administrative officer and medical
personnel at Hunt Correctional Center, are appealing the district
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
court’s denial of their motion to dismiss appellee Gerald Clarke’s
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that the defendants acted with
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The
appellants argue that Clarke’s complaint did not meet the
heightened pleading requirement necessary to overcome their defense
of qualified immunity because he did not plead specific facts
showing how each of the individual defendants violated his
constitutional rights by acting unreasonably in the context of the
medical situation presented.
Clarke’s allegations with respect to each defendant were
sufficient to support a claim that each had actual knowledge of his
deteriorating condition and that each consciously disregarded the
risk of serious harm to his health by failing to follow orders or
to take action to ensure that he received the necessary medical
care. Viewing his allegations in the light most favorable to
Clarke, he has sufficiently alleged facts showing the defendants
acted with deliberate indifference to his constitutional right to
medical treatment of his serious medical needs. See Lawson v.
Dallas County, 286 F.3d 257, 262-63 (5th Cir. 2002). His
allegation further showing that the defendants’ conduct was not
objectively reasonable under the clearly established law in effect
at the time of the conduct in question. See Shipp v. McMahon, 234
F.3d 907, 911 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1052 (2001).
Clarke has sufficiently pleaded facts to overcome the defense of
qualified immunity at this stage of the proceeding. Id. at 910;
2
Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 159-60 (5th Cir. 1999). The
district court did not err in denying the defendants’ motion to
dismiss.
AFFIRMED.
3