Deliberate indifference; Pretrial detainees’ right to adequate medical care; Brawner v Scott Cnty; Whether a reasonable officer would have known of the detainee’s medical needs; “Reckless”; Effect of violating the jail’s operating procedures; Winkler v Madison Cnty; Governmental immunity under Michigan law; MCL 691.1407(2)(c); “Gross negligence”; MCL 691.1407(8)(a); “The” proximate cause; Personal representative (PR)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that a reasonable officer in defendant-Lewis’s position would not have known that plaintiff-PR’s decedent (a pretrial detainee, Lipford) had concealed narcotics in his possession and thus, had no reason to know of his serious medical needs. Further, it found that Lewis’s actions were not reckless. As to plaintiff’s state-law claim, the court concluded that Lewis was entitled to governmental immunity under Michigan law. Thus, it affirmed summary judgment for Lewis. Lipford died from an overdose while detained at the Detroit Detention Center. Lewis had failed to enter the holding area when he was making rounds, “as required by jail operating procedures.” During the intake procedure, Lipford had denied being under the influence of drugs or having medication on his person. The court noted that under Brawner, a plaintiff must show that the detainee “had an objectively serious medical need[,]” that a defendant displayed “more than negligence but less than subjective intent—something akin to reckless disregard[,]” and that the risk was “either ‘known or so obvious that it should be known’ to a reasonable official in the defendant’s position.” The court concluded that plaintiff could not meet these requirements. She was unable to show that a reasonable officer in Lewis’s position would know that Lipford potentially possessed drugs. Also, none of the other jail personnel or the three other detainees in the room with him observed Lipford “manifesting an overdose . . . .” Thus, the court held that a reasonable officer would not have known of Lipford’s serious medical needs. It also held that Lewis’s actions were not reckless. It determined that, at most, he was “negligent, not grossly negligent or reckless.” Lewis explained that officers generally violated the procedure requiring entry into the room to avoid waking the detainees. The court again emphasized that he “had no reason to know that Lipford had concealed narcotics in his body.” As to plaintiff’s state-law claim, the court held that under Michigan law, Lewis was entitled to immunity because his “actions were not the proximate cause of Lipford’s death.”