KIM HODGES, personal representative for the estate of Michael Donte Molson v. JOSEPH ABRAM, STEPHEN DUMOND, Detective (24-1292); BRAXTON CROWDER, Deputy, JASON KELLEY, Lieutenant, WARREN HANSEN, ALEX FOX, and JASON MERVAU, Detectives (24-1300) - Articles

All Content

KIM HODGES, personal representative for the estate of Michael Donte Molson v. JOSEPH ABRAM, STEPHEN DUMOND, Detective (24-1292); BRAXTON CROWDER, Deputy, JASON KELLEY, Lieutenant, WARREN HANSEN, ALEX FOX, and JASON MERVAU, Detectives (24-1300)

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jun 18, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellant Dumond.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Neil E. Youngdahl, VARNUM LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellants Crowder, Kelley, Hansen, Fox and Mervau.

Attorneys 3: ARGUED: Christopher P. Desmond, VEN JOHNSON LAW, PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellant Dumond.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Neil E. Youngdahl, Kyle P. Konwinski, VARNUM LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellants Crowder, Kelley, Hansen, Fox and Mervau. Christopher P. Desmond, VEN JOHNSON LAW, PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): CLAY, NALBANDIAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant law enforcement officers of Kent County, Michigan, appeal the district court’s denial of their motions for summary judgment in connection with this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for the alleged wrongful death of Michael Molson. Plaintiff Kim Hodges, the administrator of Molson’s estate, alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Molson’s serious medical needs, resulting in his death. For these public officials to be granted qualified immunity from liability, they must not have violated the decedent’s clearly established constitutional rights. Because this standard is satisfied, and for the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity pursuant to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and REMAND for entry of judgment for Defendants.

Attachments: