STEVEN GILLMAN, as personal representative of the estate of Megan Miller, Deceased v. CITY OF TROY, MICHIGAN, JULIE GREEN-HERNANDEZ - Articles

All Content

STEVEN GILLMAN, as personal representative of the estate of Megan Miller, Deceased v. CITY OF TROY, MICHIGAN, JULIE GREEN-HERNANDEZ

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jan 22, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Margaret T. Debler, ROSATI SCHULTZ JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, PC, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Christopher P. Desmond, VEN JOHNSON LAW PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Margaret T. Debler, Michael T. Berger, Marcelyn A. Stepanski, ROSATI SCHULTZ JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, PC, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Christopher P. Desmond, VEN JOHNSON LAW PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): COLE, MATHIS, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. When Megan Miller was arrested and booked into the City of Troy’s pretrial detention facility, she informed facility staff that she had been heavily using heroin and expected to go into withdrawal within about a day. Over the next two and a half days, Miller vomited continually. On the third day of her detention, Miller was found unconscious and unresponsive in her cell. She was pronounced dead soon after. Despite Miller’s continual vomiting, no jail official sought medical care for her—not even Julie Green-Hernandez, one of the employees responsible for monitoring the City’s pretrial detainees on the day of Miller’s death. So Miller’s husband sued Green-Hernandez, arguing that she violated Miller’s constitutional right to adequate pretrial medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment and violated Michigan state law by acting with gross negligence. In this appeal, Green-Hernandez asks us to reverse the district court’s conclusion that she is not entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourteenth Amendment claim or state law immunity on the negligence claim. Because Green-Hernandez’s arguments regarding qualified immunity are premised on disagreements with the district court’s factual findings, we lack jurisdiction over the qualified immunity question and dismiss that part of Green-Hernandez’s appeal. Our jurisdiction is proper, however, over the district court’s denial of Green-Hernandez’s claim to governmental immunity under Michigan state law, and on that question we reverse.

Attachments: