involves a determination that the substantive content of state or federal legislation is incompatible with the Constitution regardless of the procedures used to implement it. The underlying rationale is that there are certain types of government activity which are incompatible with individual rights as set forth in the Constitution. Similarly, in some § 1983 claims, as here, the question is not whether a government official employed proper procedures in taking action which allegedly injured a person; rather, the question is whether the official’s action improperly (unconstitutionally) impinged on an individual’s right to personal autonomy to the extent that that autonomy is guaranteed by the Constitution. See also, Gil-mere v. City of Atlanta, 774 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir.1985) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). 5 . This substantive due process claim
recognizing such a claim under  1983 holding that when a prisoners deliberate indifference claim is covered by the eighth amendment the substantive due process claims are duplicative and thus the substantive due process claims should be dismissed recognizing a plaintiffs  1988 claim predicated on an alleged violation of his substantive due process rights holding that pretrial detainees can bring substantive due process claim recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim