42 USC § 1983; Eighth Amendment “deliberate indifference” to inmates’ serious medical needs claim; Qualified immunity; Whether there was a violation of a “clearly established right”; “Conditions of confinement” Eighth Amendment claim; Gross negligence claims under Michigan law; Immunity under Michigan’s Government Tort Liability Act (GTLA); “Proximate cause”; MCL 691.1407(2)(c)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that defendants-prison officials (MDOC Officials) were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs-current and former inmates’ Eighth Amendment claims because plaintiffs failed to cite a single case with similar circumstances to support that defendants had violated “a clearly established” constitutional right related to plaintiffs’ medical needs. But it found that plaintiffs “adequately pleaded that these officials were the proximate cause of their injuries under Michigan law.” Plaintiffs suffered from scabies while in a Michigan prison. Contractors (the Corizon Defendants) responsible for the health and disease prevention told prison officials that it was not scabies. However, “an outside dermatologist found that these providers had misdiagnosed the women and that scabies had spread through the prison.” The named plaintiffs in this class action were four inmates incarcerated during this time. They sued under § 1983 seeking “damages not just from the medical providers but also from various prison officials who did not treat them.” They asserted claims for deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs and for gross negligence under Michigan law. The district court denied defendants qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claims and state-law immunity on the negligence claims. As to the denial of qualified immunity, the court held that plaintiffs were unable to cite a case “with similar enough facts that it would have alerted the defendants that their ‘specific conduct was unlawful.’” Prison officials could not be “vicariously liable simply because the Corizon Defendants allegedly mistreated” plaintiffs’ scabies. They failed to allege that any of the prison officials were “‘personally involved in the allegedly inadequate medical care’” plaintiffs received. The court held that the MDOC Officials and another group of defendants (the Wayne State Officials) were entitled to qualified immunity. As to plaintiffs’ conditions of confinement claim, they again identified “no ‘case’ that would have ‘clearly established’ for the MDOC and Wayne State Officials that they had a duty to overturn the Corizon practitioners’ efforts to combat the rashes.” As to the Michigan negligence claims, the court found the MDOC Officials’ proximate cause argument premature, concluding discovery was needed. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.