The district court properly concluded that Gray is entitled to qualified immunity.

Even if the due process clause required Gray to provide emergency medical treatment beyond calling for an ambulance, that duty was not clearly established when the accident occurred. See Wilson v.

Bissell, 31 F.3d 1241, 1256 (3d Cir. 1994) (in qualified immunity context, concluding that plain­ tiffs Fifth Amendment claim against county officers who interrogated him did not rely on clearly established law; noting that the

Claims of assault, battery, 3 "Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the

right was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct."

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’

Neff, 905 F.2d 1349, 1353-54 (10th Cir.1990)). 17 While Deputy Byron’s actions were protected by qualified immunity because “[e]ven if the rule of law regarding an officer’s jurisdiction was clearly established in Ross, that decision

Federal officers are entitled to “qualified immunity” from tort suits for actions taken in the course of their official duties. E.g., Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985); Harlow v.

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), the Supreme Court explained that an officer is entitled to such immunity unless he violates a constitutional right that is “clearly established” at the time 14(....continued) S e e Smith M emorandum