103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989). The Due Process Clause forbids the state from itself depriving citizens of those rights, but it does not require the state to provide aid, even when it may be necessary. Id. at 195-96, 109 S.Ct. 998. (“The Clause is phrased as a limitation of the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security.... Its purpose was to protect the people from the State, not to ensure that the state protected them from each other.”). Nevertheless, there are limited circumstances where the state has created a danger or has a special relationship with an individual, when it will be required to protect a person’s right to personal inviolability from private or public abuse. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (<HOLDING>); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct.
holding that failure to provide adequate medical care claim asserted against supervisory prison official should be dismissed because the fact that he did not respond to or denied plaintiffs grievances does not alone state a claim   holding that government has obligation to provide for health needs of incarcerated prisoners holding that a general acute care hospital may not delegate its duty to provide physicians for emergency room care because the law imposes a duty on hospital to provide that health care holding that a state is required to provide medical care to incarcerated individuals holding that private doctor under contract with a state prison to provide medical care to prisoners acted under color of state law when he treated inmate