Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim; Deliberate indifference; Qualified immunity; Objective & subjective components; Helling v McKinney; Clearly established right; Governmental immunity; Gross negligence; MCL 691.1407(2)(c) & (8)(a); Proximate cause; Individualized pleading

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against nine prison officials and gross-negligence claims against eight of them, but five other officials were entitled to qualified and governmental immunity because the complaint alleged their personal involvement only in conclusory terms. Plaintiffs-current or former inmates at the Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility alleged pervasive mold throughout the prison caused serious respiratory illnesses, rashes, infections, seizures, and other health problems. The district court denied defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. On appeal, the court first concluded plaintiffs satisfied the objective component of their conditions-of-confinement claims. “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.” As to the subjective component, specific allegations that nine officials received complaints, personally observed mold, ignored inspection findings, or participated in concealing the mold plausibly showed that they knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm. By contrast, allegations against five supervisory officials were “‘naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement’” and did not plausibly establish deliberate indifference. The court further concluded that Helling clearly established that prison officials may not ignore a condition “that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering,” and plaintiffs did not need precedent involving the same type of mold. Turning to Michigan law, the deliberate-indifference allegations also plausibly established gross negligence as to eight officials, and allegations that they concealed or refused to eradicate the mold sufficiently pleaded that their conduct was “the most immediate, efficient, and direct cause” of plaintiffs’ injuries. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity as to nine defendants and governmental immunity as to eight, reversed as to the five remaining defendants, and remanded.