finding that prisoner’s allegations that officials failed to provide training to prevent the provision of inadequate medical care and implicitly authorized unconstitutional conduct should survive a motion to dismiss
How later courts described this case
- finding that prisoner’s allegations that officials failed to provide training to prevent the provision of inadequate medical care and implicitly authorized unconstitutional conduct should survive a motion to dismiss
- in case alleging an Eighth Amendment claim of inadequate medical treatment, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on basis of qualified immunity was premature; the subjective state of mind of prison officials was a fact-specific inquiry, and plaintiff had not yet had the opportunity to initiate discovery or to develop a factual record upon which the qualified immunity determination could be based
- in case alleging an Eighth Amendment claim of inadequate medical treatment, a Rule 12(b)(6
- denying review of whether law was clearly established because it was “a fact-specific inquiry . . . ill-suited for” the court’s review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GIBBONS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
As I understand Judge Keith’s opinion, he concludes that resolving the issue of qualified immunity in the context of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is premature in this case because at least some of plaintiffs allegations against the state officials could be sufficient to amount to a constitutional violation that was clearly established. For this reason, he concludes that plaintiff should have an opportunity to develop her allegations through discovery. To a very limited extent, I agree and thus concur in the result. But I note further that the overall thrust of plaintiffs assertions against the state officials is that they awarded a contract to CMS when they knew or should have known about prior criticisms and claims against CMS arising from its provision of inadequate medical care to Michigan prisoners. I know of no case law giving notice to supervisory officials that they can be personally liable for the inadequacies of a medical service provider with whom they contracted. Taylor v. Mich. Dept. of Corrections, 69 F.3d 76 (6th Cir.1995), on which plaintiff relies, cannot provide the requisite notice. Taylor relates to the failure of a warden, who had the duty of approving all transfers, to *285 develop transfer policies to protect vulnerable inmates, a situation quite different from that alleged here. Thus, I have serious doubt that any constitutional violation that plaintiff can support through evidence developed in discovery mil be a clearly established one of which a reasonable defendant would have known. Nevertheless, I concur because some of plaintiffs allegations are sufficiently imprecise that it is at least possible that she could develop a more traditional failure to train or other similar claim that could form a basis for liability.