HOWARD T. LINDEN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Timesha Beauchamp v. CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN; MICHAEL STORMS, SCOTT RICKARD, PHILLIP MULLIGAN, and JAKE KROLL, in their individual capacities, jointly and severally - Articles

All Content

HOWARD T. LINDEN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Timesha Beauchamp v. CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN; MICHAEL STORMS, SCOTT RICKARD, PHILLIP MULLIGAN, and JAKE KROLL, in their individual capacities, jointly and severally

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Jul 26, 2023

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Robert G. Kamenec, FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY & HARRINGTON, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Kali M. L. Henderson, SEWARD HENDERSON PLLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Robert G. Kamenec, FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY & HARRINGTON, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Kali M. L. Henderson, T. Joseph Seward, SEWARD HENDERSON PLLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellees.

Judge(s): GIBBONS, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

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

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Emergency medical personnel in Southfield, Michigan, pronounced Timesha Beauchamp dead when she was still alive. Beauchamp was placed in a body bag and transported to a funeral home, where an embalmer discovered that she was not dead. Beauchamp was hospitalized and died about six weeks later. Howard Linden, the administrator of Beauchamp’s estate, sues the City of Southfield (the “City”) and individual emergency medical personnel for their actions, which he says violated Beauchamp’s constitutional rights. The district court found that Linden failed to plead a constitutional violation and accordingly granted the defendants-appellees’ motion to dismiss Beauchamp’s claims. Because the individual defendants-appellees in this case are entitled to qualified immunity, and because the City is not liable for any constitutional violation, we affirm the district court on alternative grounds.

Attachments: