Where a complaint was filed alleging that a fatal overdose was caused by fentanyl obtained from a University of Michigan pharmacology lab, the university’s motion to dismiss should have been allowed on sovereign immunity grounds.
“Plaintiffs Heather, Lori, and Dale Kerchen filed a complaint against Defendants the University of Michigan and Dr. James Woods, alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Michigan state law. Defendants appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordering limited discovery on whether this action is barred by the statutes of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims. For the reasons stated below, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss, DISMISS various claims for lack of jurisdiction as specified below, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
“On appeal, Defendants argue that the district court erred in denying sovereign immunity to the University and Woods in his official capacity, and qualified immunity to Woods in his individual capacity. As an initial matter, the district court should have ruled on Defendants’ immunity defenses before ordering discovery.
“Defendants argue that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity requires dismissal of all claims made against the University of Michigan and Woods in his official capacity.
“Plaintiffs only seek monetary damages from Defendants, implicating the Eleventh Amendment’s bar to suit. The University of Michigan is a state agency entitled to claim Eleventh Amendment immunity. ... And as an employee of the University, all claims against Woods in his official capacity are construed as asserted against Michigan itself. Moreover, Congress has not abrogated Michigan’s immunity to suit under 1983 claims. ... Thus, unless Michigan consented to suit in federal court in this matter or on these claims, the University and Woods in his official capacity are entitled to sovereign immunity.
“Plaintiffs only request monetary damages, and the University and Woods in his official capacity are treated as the State of Michigan for purposes of this litigation. Moreover, contrary to Plaintiffs’ attempt to show otherwise, Michigan has not waived its sovereign immunity in this litigation either by representing Woods in his individual capacity or by any other litigation conduct. Therefore, all claims against the University and Woods in his official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
“Defendants also argue that qualified immunity bars Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim under 1983 against Woods in his individual capacity.
“In all, Plaintiffs allege that Woods did not ‘always’ follow the lab’s plan to ensure a safe distribution of the drugs, and that he did not implement any additional procedures to ensure the drugs remained in the lab. ... This behavior sounds in negligence, rather than the type of ‘callous disregard for the safety’ of the community that we have held is necessary to show a due process violation. Thus, because the complaint does not plausibly allege either that Woods knew of the substantial risk that [Christian] Raphalides would take drugs out of the lab, or that Woods’ actions amounted to conscience-shocking behavior, Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that Woods violated Todd’s substantive due process rights. Accordingly, Woods is entitled to qualified immunity.
“For the reasons stated above, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss and REMAND with instructions to: (1) dismiss all claims against the University and Woods in his official capacity as barred by sovereign immunity; (2) dismiss the 1983 claim against Woods in his individual capacity as barred by qualified immunity; and (3) dismiss the wrongful death claim against Woods in his individual capacity as barred by governmental immunity. We DISMISS the remainder of Defendants’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”
Kerchen v. Univ. of Michigan; MiLW 01-107980, 19 pages; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Clay, J., joined by Cole, J., Bloomekatz, J.; on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint; Brian M. Schwartz for appellants; Dustyn K. Coontz for appellees.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0