“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A group of women currently or formerly confined to a Michigan prison challenged unhealthy and harmful conditions.
What happened in this case?
The Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility houses over 2000 prisoners. A number of current and former prisoners there filed a federal suit seeking redress for serious harm from pervasive mold in the facility. The complaint explains that extreme mold is in shower units, sinks, toilets, walls, and elsewhere, eats through brick, and causes “unhealthy mold concentrations” and other problems. For example, the lead plaintiff, Paula Bailey, who was confined in the prison for more than ten years, suffered from itchy rashes, sneezing, constant coughing, shortness of breath, nosebleeds, muscle cramping, hair loss, chest pain and other problems. After her release, nurses confirmed that the mold and related poor conditions caused her problems and she “continues to live with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.”
The district court refused to grant immunity to the fourteen defendants, who included officials at the prison and in the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), and to dismiss the case. The officials appealed to the Sixth Circuit. A panel including Trump judge Chad Readler, George W Bush judge Richard Griffin, and Clinton judge Ronald Gilman considered the case.
All members of the panel agreed to affirm the lower court decision as to nine of the defendants. But in an October ruling in Bailey v Michigan Department of Corrections, Trump judge Readler cast the deciding vote in an opinion written by Griffin to grant complete immunity from liability to five supervisory officials at MDOC. Clinton judge Gilman dissented. The majority maintained that the complaint had made only “conclusory, non fact-based allegations” against those five.
Why did Judge Gilman dissent?
Based on a careful review of the complaint and past precedent, Judge Gilman disagreed with the majority and wrote that the allegations against the five supervisory officials were clearly “sufficient to defeat their defenses” of immunity at this stage of the case. The five officials were the MDOC supervisors between the MDOC director and those who actually work at the prison. Contrary to the majority, Gilman wrote that the complaint “specifically” alleges that each of these officials’ responsibilities “caused them to know” about the mold problems, that they had the duty to take action, but that they “failed to do so.” In fact, Gilman went on, the complaint stated that each of them supervised subordinates who were “directly involved” in trying to address the mold problems. Dismissal of these five defendants at this stage, he concluded, was clearly improper.
Why is this decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Readler clearly harms Paula Bailey and the other present and former Michigan prisoners in their effort to fully address the harmful effects of the mold problems at Huron Valley. It also sets a bad precedent concerning state supervisor liability for harmful and dangerous prison conditions, particularly in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.