Is it a violation of substantive due process for state medical personnel to actively and affirmatively inflict injury on a patient?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Decedent, Gary Schauer, was injured in an altercation which resulted in a broken neck and partial paralysis. The Emergency Medical Technicians, (“EMTs”), were aware of his spinal court injury but nevertheless moved him without stabilizing his neck, which resulted in complete paralysis and eventual death. The City of Ponca City was sued for violation of his civil rights for actively injuring him and not for inadequate medical care. The District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma Dismissed the claim and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. A Petition for Rehearing en banc was denied. This decision conflicts with the Third Circuit case of Ziccardi v. City of Philadelphia, 288 F.3d 57 (3d Cir. 2002), under virtually identical facts. The Tenth Circuit rejected Petitioner’s argument that any reasonable EMT would know that this was obviously unlawful and held that the EMTs were entitled to qualified immunity Taylor v. Riojas, 141 8. Ct. 52, 53-54 (2020). The Petitioner also sued the City of Ponca City for failure to train the EMTs in the proper handling of patients with spinal cord injuries. The EMTs stated that their usual practice was not to immobilize intoxicated patients even if they exhibited symptoms of a spinal cord injury. The Questions Presented, therefore, are: 1. Isit aviolation of substantive due process for state medical personnel to actively and affirmatively inflict injury on a patient? 2. Is it an obvious violation of a patient’s rights to transport a patient with a spinal cord injury without immobilization? u 3. Does Petitioner state a plausible claim for municipal liability when the EMTs admit that it is their standard practice and routine not to immobilize intoxicated patients? 4. Is Petitioner entitled to limited discovery to uncover evidence of the City’s policy to which only the City has access?