Carthan v. Snyder Case No. 16-CV-10444 (In re Flint Water Cases)
329 F. Supp. 3d 369
E.D. Mich.2018Background
- In April 2014 Flint switched its municipal water supply from Detroit (DWSD) to the Flint River treated at the city’s FWTP; inadequate treatment and corrosion control followed, producing lead and bacterial contamination and related health harms through October 2015 and beyond.
- Plaintiffs are a group of individuals and businesses asserting injuries (personal, developmental, property, lost income) from ingesting or using Flint water; defendants include state and local officials, MDEQ/MDHHS employees, emergency managers, the City of Flint, and engineering consultants LAN and Veolia.
- Complaint alleges (inter alia) that state and local actors knew or recklessly disregarded risks, approved the switch or failed to require corrosion control, concealed or misrepresented water safety, and that consultants (LAN, Veolia) provided deficient or misleading advice.
- Case was consolidated with multiple related class actions; plaintiffs pleaded federal constitutional claims (substantive due process — state-created danger and bodily integrity, Equal Protection, § 1985(3)), state statutory claims (ELCRA), Monell, fraud, negligence/professional negligence, NIED, and others.
- The court applied Sixth Circuit precedent (notably Mays and Boler), dismissed multiple claims and some defendants, and allowed certain bodily-integrity § 1983 claims and a Monell claim tied to that theory to proceed against specific officials and municipal actors; many other claims (state-created danger, Equal Protection, § 1985(3), ELCRA, fraud as pleaded, NIED, common-law negligence, gross negligence, and some individual defendants) were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| State-created-danger (substantive due process) | Government created/increased risk of harm by switching water and deceiving residents; third-party violence requirement unnecessary | Test requires risk from private third-party violence and a discrete class; claims are general/public | Dismissed: plaintiffs did not plead third-party-violence element or a discrete class; claim fails under Sixth Circuit test |
| Bodily-integrity (substantive due process under § 1983) | Officials knowingly exposed involuntary water users to toxic substances and concealed dangers, shocking the conscience | Many defendants argue lack of intent/knowledge or only negligent conduct; some argue supervisory distance precludes liability | Allowed in part: court found plausible conscience-shocking allegations and intent/knowing deception as to specific officials (e.g., Dillon, Lyon, Shekter-Smith, Rosenthal, Busch, Cook, Prysby, Wurfel, Wright, Earley, Ambrose, Glasgow, Johnson, Croft); others (e.g., Snyder, Wyant, Kurtz, Walling, Peeler) dismissed |
| Equal Protection / ELCRA / § 1985(3) (race/wealth-based discrimination) | Switching Flint’s supply targeted a majority‑Black, poor community; disparate treatment vs. Genesee County | Defendants: plaintiffs fail to plead jurisdictional/control over comparator group, and cannot assert a suspect-class claim comprised largely of non-protected persons | Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to plead jurisdictional/control and the race-based class identity required; ELCRA and §1985(3) dismissed |
| Fraud (against Veolia) | Veolia publicly reported Flint water was "safe" and met standards; statements were false and made to induce reliance | Veolia: statements are not pleaded with the required particularity and plaintiffs fail to plead specific reliance by individual plaintiffs | Dismissed as pleaded: fraud allegations insufficiently particular as to individual plaintiff reliance (some plaintiffs’ claims against Veolia allowed where timely use alleged) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998) (state-created-danger test requires risk of private third-party violence)
- McQueen v. Beecher Cmty. Sch., 433 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. 2006) (state-created-danger elements)
- Jones v. Reynolds, 438 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2006) (state-created-danger formulation)
- Mays v. City of Flint, 871 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2017) (SDWA/§1983 & immunity rulings relevant to Flint litigation)
- Boler v. Earley, 865 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2017) (sovereign immunity and related holdings)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (conscience-shocking standard for substantive due process)
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (forcible intrusion and conscience-shocking conduct)
- Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250 (right to bodily integrity)
- Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (refusal of unwanted medical treatment as liberty interest)
- Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (forcible administration of medication implicates bodily integrity)