Action under 42 USC § 1983 alleging due process violations; Procedural due process claim based on not receiving timely notice of a relative’s death to prevent decomposition; Whaley v County of Tuscola; Qualified immunity; Whether the asserted procedural due process rights were “clearly established” at the time of the conduct; Municipal liability under Monell v Department of Soc Serv; Arrington-Bey v City of Bedford Heights; Wayne County Medical Examiner’s Office (WCMEO)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that plaintiffs’ (the Martinez family) procedural due process claim against defendants for not timely informing them of their son’s death to prevent decomposition failed because the alleged right was not “clearly established.” Since there was no constitutional violation, defendant-Wayne County was also entitled to dismissal of the Monell claim. Luis Martinez Jr. died and the WCMEO took control of the body. Although it found his next of kin, it failed to contact them. His family hired someone to find him but when they did, his body was severely decomposed. The family was unable to view the body before cremation. They sued alleging a procedural due process violation under § 1983 and asserting liability under Monell. The district court dismissed the case. The court first considered the procedural due process claim. The family argued that, as next of kin, they had a property interest in Luis’s body protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. They claimed that defendants violated that interest by not informing them of his death so that they did not learn about it “until the body was severely decomposed. And that the lack of a a pre- or post-deprivation hearing violated their procedural due process rights.” But the court held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because the right that was allegedly violated was not “clearly established” when the conduct occurred. In Whaley the court stated, “the Michigan courts have held that the ‘next of kin have a right to possess the body for burial and prevent its mutilation.’” But the court found that “this statement defines the right at too high a level of generality to put WCMEO officials on notice that their conduct here violated the family’s constitutional rights.” Two things formed the basis of the underlying alleged constitutional violation here: “(1) delayed notification of the decedent’s death and (2) severe, natural decomposition of the corpse.” None of the cited cases dealt with these issues. Thus, “the Martinez Family did not have a clearly established constitutional right to timely notice of Luis Jr.’s death to prevent decomposition of his body,” and as a result defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claim. In addition, there “‘can be no liability under Monell without an underlying constitutional violation.’” Further, the court agreed with the district court that there were insufficient factual allegations to support a Monell claim. Affirmed.