Melissa Mays v. Rick Snyder
17-1144
| 6th Cir. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- In 2014 Flint switched its water source from Detroit Water (DWSD) to the Flint River under state-appointed Emergency Managers; treatment/corrosion control measures were inadequate and residents soon reported bacterial contamination and elevated lead levels.
- Plaintiffs (two consolidated suits, Boler and Mays) sued state and local officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process, Equal Protection, Contract Clause, state-created danger, bodily integrity) and § 1985, plus state-law claims, seeking injunctions, remediation, and damages.
- The district court dismissed the § 1983 claims, holding they were precluded by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; it also dismissed some defendants on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the SDWA precludes § 1983 suits asserting constitutional violations, and considered sovereign-immunity and Ex Parte Young issues.
- The Sixth Circuit held the SDWA does not preclude the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims or related § 1985 claims, but affirmed Eleventh Amendment dismissal of claims against the State and certain state agencies/officials; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDWA precludes § 1983 claims for alleged constitutional violations | § 1983 enforces independent constitutional rights (Due Process, Equal Protection, Contract Clause); SDWA does not show congressional intent to displace § 1983 | SDWA’s remedial scheme and citizen‑suit provisions are sufficiently comprehensive to foreclose § 1983 (Mattoon/Sea Clammers) | SDWA does not preclude § 1983 for constitutional claims; reversed dismissal |
| Viability of § 1985 conspiracy claims | § 1985 claim depends on viable § 1983 constitutional claims | § 1985 fails if § 1983 precluded | Because § 1983 not precluded, § 1985 reversal of dismissal; claim may proceed |
| Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity (State, MDEQ, MDHHS, Governor) | State waived immunity via litigation conduct; Ex Parte Young should permit prospective relief against officials | State immune; no waiver; Ex Parte Young inapplicable for some claims | Sovereign immunity bars suits against State, MDEQ, MDHHS, and Governor in Boler; affirmed dismissal as to those defendants; Ex Parte Young permitted prospective relief claim vs Governor in Mays |
| Whether Ex Parte Young permits requested injunctive/ prospective relief | Plaintiffs seek prospective remediation (repairs, medical monitoring, appointment of monitor); ongoing harms continue | Defendants: relief is retroactive/damages or no ongoing violation; declaratory relief not available | For Mays, Ex Parte Young applies (ongoing effects and prospective remedial relief); for Boler Ex Parte Young not shown as complaint lacked clear ongoing violation/ prospective relief details |
| Whether appeals should be resolved on alternate grounds (12(b)(6), immunity, respondeat superior) | Plaintiffs: merits and immunity defenses not resolved below; should be decided on remand | Defendants: merits (failure to state claim), absolute/qualified immunity, supervisor‑liability defenses justify affirmance | Court declined to decide merits or broad immunity defenses on appeal; remanded for district court to address these issues in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 (Sea Clammers) (statutory remedial scheme may evince congressional intent to preclude § 1983)
- Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (EHA precluded § 1983 where statute and history showed exclusive remedial scheme)
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (TCA remedies deliberate and not to be evaded via § 1983)
- Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (framework: distinguish § 1983 claims based on statutes from those alleging constitutional violations; compare contours/remedies)
- Charvat v. E. Ohio Reg’l Wastewater Auth., 246 F.3d 607 (6th Cir.) (SDWA whistleblower provisions did not preclude First Amendment § 1983 claim)
- Communities for Equity v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 459 F.3d 676 (6th Cir.) (congressional intent inquiry must consider whether statute displaces established Fourteenth Amendment remedies)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (Eleventh Amendment bars money damages against state agencies and officials sued in their official capacity)
- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (prospective injunctive relief against state officials for ongoing violations of federal law)