SUZANNE LEFRERE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROSS PAUL YATES, DECEASED, ELAINE GARNER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROSS PAUL YATES, DECEASED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
JORGE QUEZADA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, BALDWIN COUNTY COMMISSION, JAMES B. JOHNSON, STEVE ARTHUR, DEFENDANTS
CARNES, Circuit Judge: We recently issued an opinion certifying to the Alabama Supreme Court this question of state law: “Are jailers, like sheriffs and their deputies, absolutely immune from state claims for money damages based on actions taken within the scope of their employment?” LeFrere v. Quezada, 582 F. 3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir.2009).
We did so because we needed to know whether the A'ne-guess we made twelve years ago in Lancaster v. Monroe County, 116 F. 3d 1419, 1431 (11th Cir.1997), that jailers were entitled to that immunity was an accurate statement of Alabama law. LeFrere, 582 F. 3d at 1268. Only seven days after we issued our opinion certifying that question, the answer came from the Alabama Supreme Court in another case. See Ex parte Shelley, — So. 3d-, Nos. 1080588, 1080863, 2009 WL 2997498 (Ala. Sept. 18, 2009).
Because of the Shelley decision, we now know that our Lancaster decision is not an accurate statement of Alabama law.
We now know that jailers are not entitled to absolute state immunity under Art. I, § 14 of the Alabama Constitution. Because that is all we need to know to decide this appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court quite understandably and politely declined to answer our certified question in light of its Shelley decision. Quezada v. LeFrere, No. 1081741 (Ala. Dec. 1, 2009). The Shelley decision is the answer to our question. Because the Shelley decision effectively overrules our Lancaster decision on the issue of absolute immunity for Alabama jailers facing state law claims, Officer Quezada’s motion to dismiss on that ground was properly denied. AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Nilesh S. Patel v. Smith, 969 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2020)…ust clearly establish that the specific medical issue complained of—here, heat exhaustion counts as a serious medical need. Lancaster v. Monroe Cty., 116 F.3d 1419, 1426 n.7 (11th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by LeFrere v. Quezada, 588 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2009). We have also opined, in dicta, that our “general statement of law ordinarily does not preclude qualified immunity in cases involving a delay in medical treatment for a serious injury” because “[t]he cases are highly fact- specific…
-
NAM Dang v. Sheriff, Seminole Cnty. Fla., Olugbenga Ogunsanwo, M.D., Sandra Wilt, RN, Brenda Preston-Mayle, RN, Alecia Scott, LPN, 871 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2017)…hat an inmate is in serious need of medical care, but he [or she] fails or refuses to obtain medical treatment for the inmate.” Lancaster v. Monroe Cty., Ala., 116 F. 3d 1419, 1425 (11th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by LeFrere v. Quezada, 588 F. 3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2009). Even when medical care is ultimately provided, a pris on official may nonetheless act with deliberate indifference by delaying the treatment of serious medical needs. See Harris v. Coweta Cty., 21 F. 3d 388, 393-94 (11th Ci…
-
Wade v. Solomon Daniels, 36 F.4th 1318 (11th Cir. 2022)…icted prisoner; both the right to due process and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are violated by a govern- ment official’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”), overruled on other grounds by LeFrere v. Quezada, 588 F.3d 1317, 1317–18 (11th Cir. 2009). USCA11 Case: 18-12371 Date Filed: 06/13/2022 Page: 14 of 58 14 Opinion of the Court 18-12371 To start, a jury could find that there was a four-minute delay in seeking medical care. Wade says that he was shot at 2:03 p.m…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cylinda H. Lancaster v. Monroe Cnty., 116 F.3d 1419 (11th Cir. 1997)
- LeFRERE v. Quezada, 582 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009)