Key Points

  • The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to nine Michigan prison officials accused of ignoring and concealing pervasive mold at the Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility.
  • The court held that Helling v. McKinney (1993) clearly established that prison officials may not ignore a condition of confinement sure or very likely to cause serious illness, including prolonged exposure to pervasive mold.
  • Eight of the nine officials were also denied Michigan governmental immunity on the negligence claim because the complaint plausibly alleged gross negligence that was the proximate cause of the inmates' injuries.
  • Five senior MDOC administrators received qualified and governmental immunity because the complaint pleaded their knowledge and conduct only collectively and in conclusory terms.
  • Judge Gilman dissented as to the five administrators, arguing that their alleged duties, receipt of physical-plant reports and supervision of facility staff were enough before discovery.

Nine Michigan prison officials must face a lawsuit alleging that they ignored, and in some cases painted over, mold that dripped from shower ceilings onto women held at the Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility, a federal appeals court ruled Oct. 15.

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the officials, including Michigan Department of Corrections Director Heidi Washington and Warden Shawn Brewer, are not entitled to qualified immunity. Judge Griffin wrote for the court, joined by Judge Readler. The panel reversed the trial court as to five senior department administrators, holding that the complaint described them only in conclusory, collective terms. Judge Ronald Lee Gilman dissented on that point.

The published decision keeps the claims against the director, the facility's wardens and deputy wardens, and four maintenance officials alive in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The court held that Helling v. McKinney, a 1993 Supreme Court case about a prisoner housed with a cellmate who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day, gave prison officials fair notice that they could not ignore prolonged mold exposure.

Three current or former inmates, Paula Bailey, Krystal Clark and Hope Zentz, sued on Nov. 20, 2019. According to the second amended complaint, mold covered the walls, ceilings and floors of the shower units, grew in vents, sinks and closets, and ate through bricks and door frames. Air samples showed unhealthy mold concentrations.

The women alleged rashes, seizures, pneumonia and breathing problems. Nurses told Bailey in April 2018 that her symptoms were "related to mold exposure."

Officials hid the mold rather than remove it, the complaint alleges. Brewer and two deputy wardens ordered workers to paint over it, and maintenance supervisors told workers to conceal it with grout. When inmates asked for fungus remover, Brewer refused, telling them that "if they scrubbed harder, the mold would be gone."

The officials moved for judgment on the pleadings, citing qualified immunity and Michigan governmental immunity. U.S. District Judge Stephen Joseph Murphy III denied the motion.

On appeal, the officials argued that the inmates had at most "experienced discomfort" and that an Eighth Amendment claim required more "egregious," "heinous, even outrageous" allegations. Griffin rejected the argument. "Contemporary standards of decency do not tolerate prolonged exposure to mold so pervasive and serious that it allegedly drips onto inmates regularly, exceeds healthy airborne levels, and causes severe respiratory conditions, rashes, and seizures," he wrote.

The court then addressed deliberate indifference, the requirement that each official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk to inmates' health. The complaint alleged that Brewer received grievances, saw mold in the showers and told inmates they could not mention the "mold problem." Griffin wrote that it was "certainly plausible" that Brewer knew of the risk and disregarded it. The panel reached the same conclusion for Washington, who allegedly never responded to Clark's letters, and for the deputy wardens and maintenance officials accused of painting over mold.

On whether the law was clearly established, Griffin wrote, "We need look no further than Helling." The officials had argued that the inmates needed cases addressing each type of mold at Huron Valley. The panel acknowledged the Supreme Court's 2026 decision in Zorn v. Linton, which requires precedent to "define the right with a high degree of specificity," and held that Helling met that standard. "It is beyond debate that prison officials cannot ignore prolonged, involuntary exposure of anyone to an airborne pollutant that is substantially likely to cause serious harm," Griffin wrote.

Eight officials also lost their bid for state governmental immunity, which protects Michigan employees from tort suits unless their gross negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. Washington was not named in the inmates' negligence claim. The panel said proximate cause "is an issue of fact currently disputed by the parties and deserving of at least some discovery," quoting a 2016 Sixth Circuit decision.

The five administrators won on both immunities. They are Deputy Director Kenneth McKee, Assistant Deputy Director Jeremy Bush, Acting Deputy Director Lia Gulick, Physical Plant Division Administrator Ed Vallad and State Administrative Manager Toni Moore. "The complaint lumps these defendants together, alleging in gross and in conclusory fashion" that they knew of the mold and disregarded the risk, Griffin wrote. The court held that the complaint offered only "naked assertion[s]" about them.

Gilman wrote that the allegations against the five, the supervisory layer between Washington and Huron Valley's officials, "are neither 'conclusory' nor 'in gross.'" He pointed to allegations of each official's duties, of their supervision of facility staff, and that each read annual physical-plant reports warning of a "hazard to inmates." He distinguished a 2026 Huron Valley scabies case in which the department had relied on a medical contractor. "This is MDOC's own building," Gilman wrote. "The five defendants in question share a direct, not outsourced, responsibility for it."

At the pleading stage, Gilman wrote, "one cannot reasonably expect plaintiffs to muster an array of unique, specific factual allegations when the case turns on each defendant's alleged failure to have acted." He concluded that "dismissing these five defendants before plaintiffs have had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery is therefore unfair."

Joshua S. Smith of the Michigan Attorney General's office argued for the officials. Channing Robinson-Holmes of Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers PC argued for the inmates.

The panel remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Eighth Amendment claims against the nine officials and the negligence claims against eight of them now return to that court.