holding that, for purposes of qualified immunity, the question of “whether the law allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the complained-about conduct, and, if it was, whether the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the information known to the official at the time,” are “objective, albeit fact-specific, inquiries, which we undertake as questions of law”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, for purposes of qualified immunity, the question of “whether the law allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the complained-about conduct, and, if it was, whether the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the information known to the official at the time,” are “objective, albeit fact-specific, inquiries, which we undertake as questions of law”
- holding that evidence of inmate’s medical needs would not be considered in determining "whether Sheriff [ ] retains his entitlement to qualified immunity because there is no record evidence at this stage that [Sheriff] actually knew of [this evidence]"
- holding that it is clearly established law that a reasonable sheriff would have known that a lengthy delay in prescribed treatment for a serious medical need for a nonmedical reason may violate an inmate's constitutional rights
- stating that “[d]elayed treatment for 9 injuries that are of a lesser degree of immediacy than broken bones and bleeding cuts, but that are 10 obvious serious medical needs, may also give rise to constitutional claims”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the decision that summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds was properly denied with the understanding that first, the law concerning'medical treatment of prisoners was clearly established, i.e., the *395 plaintiff can recover only if the defendant was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiffs medical needs, and second, there are issues of fact as to whether the Sheriffs conduct rose to the level of deliberate indifference required to establish liability. The need for medical treatment upon which to base the claim may be shown not only by the facts the Sheriff knew at the time he acted, but by facts that a reasonable Sheriff should have known, had he been other than deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s medical needs.