Substantive due-process & state-created-danger claims under 42 USC § 1983 for lead-contaminated drinking water; Whether plaintiffs stated a claim for violation of “bodily integrity” under the Fourteenth Amendment against defendants-city & state officials; Guertin v Michigan; Whether the right to bodily integrity was “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity; In re Flint Water Cases; Claim against defendant-city under Monell v Department of Soc Servs; Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.]  The court held that plaintiffs plausibly pled a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity against defendants-City of Benton Harbor officials and their Monell claim against defendant-City arising from lead-contaminated water. Thus, it reversed the dismissal of those claims and remanded. It also reversed and remanded as to the district court’s order declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. But it affirmed the dismissal of the claims against defendants-State officials. This case was brought by children living in Benton Harbor who have elevated levels of lead in their blood after drinking City water. They sued the City and various officials under § 1983 alleging substantive-due-process and state-created-danger violations and state-law negligence against engineering firms. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and based on qualified immunity and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. As to plaintiffs’ bodily integrity claim, under Guertin, they were required to show not only that their “bodily integrity was infringed, but also that it was infringed by government officials’ discretionary, ‘constitutionally repugnant’ actions.” This involves a “shock the conscience” standard. The court found that if plaintiffs’ “claims are true—that the City officials lied about the presence of lead in the Benton Harbor water supply, thereby causing residents to drink the water—that would shock the conscience.” That is all that was needed at this stage of the litigation. While the court determined that plaintiffs failed to allege that the State defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to a known risk of harm, the result was not the same for the City defendants. The court held that “the complaint’s allegations regarding the City officials tell a plausible tale of deliberate indifference to a known risk of harm.” The court reviewed false statements made by City officials “that the City itself had no lead lines” and the complaint’s allegations that one of them “attempted to cover up the extent of the problem or, at least, remained willfully blind to its scale and severity.” The complaint alleged that they “‘dishonestly and publicly stated that inroads were being made regarding eliminating lead from the water,’ even as lead levels were rising.” These allegations were sufficient to allow the claim to go forward. The court also found that, for purposes of qualified immunity, it recognized the right to bodily integrity related to a water crisis “as a preexisting, clearly established right” in Guertin and the Flint Water Cases. And as it “concluded that the claims can go forward against the individual City officials,” it allowed the Monell claim against the City to also proceed.