Law360 (October 19, 2026, 7:29 PM EDT) -- The Sixth Circuit has ruled that several Michigan prison officials are not entitled to immunity from a lawsuit alleging that they were aware of mold contamination in a women's prison that led to several incarcerated people having seizures and developing respiratory issues.

The three-judge panel held that nine prison officials including the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections and the warden at Huron Valley Correctional Facility are not entitled to immunity because they were aware of alleged mold contamination but disregarded the possible health risks.

"The standard is whether the alleged conditions violate the 'concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency that animate the Eighth Amendment.'" Circuit Judge Richard Allen Griffin said in the majority opinion. "And 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."

The plaintiffs are all either currently or formerly incarcerated women who were housed in the Huron Valley Correctional Facility and were affected by the mold contamination. One plaintiff, Paula Bailey, who is no longer incarcerated, began noticing the mold in the facility in 2016 in a prison shower, the opinion said.

Black mold in the prison's shower dripped from the ceiling onto Bailey's face and body and led to her developing a rash, itching and "visible scars." Bailey was told by a nurse in 2018 that her symptoms were mold-related and she eventually developed long-term respiratory problems and began having seizures, the opinion said.

Krystal Clark, who is currently incarcerated, also noticed black mold dripping from the showers, in cracks in the wall and near the drains. At one point, she was given a mask to wear while showering and told to "limit her time" in there, the opinion said.

Clark still developed symptoms related to mold exposure including breathing issues and rashes and she began filing grievances with prison staff about the mold. Clark complained directly to Warden Shawn Brewer and wrote letters to Michigan Department of Corrections Director Heidi E. Washington, but never received a response, the opinion said.

An inmate committee was formed and the committee wrote to Brewer and Washington as well as other prison officials. Nothing was done to eradicate the mold and Brewer told incarcerated people they "could not mention" the mold issues, the opinion said.

The incarcerated women filed a federal lawsuit in November 2019 naming 14 defendants who allegedly violated their Eighth Amendment rights. The complaint also asserted a state law negligence claim against 13 defendants, excluding Washington, the opinion said.

The prison officials sought a judgment on the pleadings claiming they should be given qualified immunity on the constitutional claim and governmental immunity on the state law claim. A district court found that the plaintiffs had plausibly established violations of the Eighth Amendment and state law and the defendants were not entitled to immunity from any of the claims, the opinion said.

The prison officials appealed, claiming the incarcerated women had not plausibly alleged in their lawsuit that the officials' conduct was "heinous, even outrageous" and they cannot be sued. The Sixth Circuit held that nine of the 14 officials were aware of the mold and disregarded the possible effects on health and they should be made to face the lawsuit, the opinion said.

The majority said that although "routine discomfort" is part of the inherent punishment imposed on incarcerated people, the mold exceeded that standard. The panel said nine of the officials deliberately disregarded the potential effects of the mold, even though U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires them to take it seriously.

The high court ruled in its 1993 case Helling v. McKinney that prison officials could not ignore conditions that could cause "needless suffering in the next week, month or year." The Helling case revolved around an incarcerated person being involuntarily exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke, but the high court extended its ruling to other environmental hazards as well, the opinion said.

Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman partially dissented from the majority, ruling that he would deny qualified immunity to all 14 of the original defendants. The majority found the allegations against five Michigan Department of Corrections officials too conclusory and insufficiently individualized, the opinion said.

Judge Gilman, however, said the other five administrators would have known about the mold because of their "responsibilities as administrative officials." The partial dissent said leaving the five out could also negatively effect the litigation moving forward.

"Dismissing these five defendants before plaintiffs have had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery is therefore unfair," Judge Gilman said in the partial dissent. "Premature dismissal will also likely lead to inefficient litigation: if discovery later reveals that these defendants were in fact personally involved, plaintiffs will need to move to add them back into the case, which will waste further time and judicial resources."

Channing Robinson-Holmes of Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers PC, who represents the incarcerated people, told Law360 on Monday that the ruling will allow the women to litigate their case against the prison administrators.

"The court's unanimous opinion not only opens the door to justice for plaintiffs in this case but paves the way for incarcerated people across the country to pursue Eighth Amendment claims against their prison conditions when they cause serious harm. We look forward to bringing this case to trial and securing justice on behalf of the women in Huron Valley."

A spokesperson for the Michigan attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

Circuit Judges Richard Allen Griffin, Ronald Lee Gilman and Chad A. Readler sat on the panel for the Sixth Circuit.

The incarcerated women are represented by Channing Robinson-Holmes, Beth M. Rivers and Cary S. McGehee of Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers PC, Rebekah L. Bailey, Grace I. Chanin and Matthew H. Morgan of Nichols Kaster PLLP, Jonathan R. Marko of Marko Law PLLC, David S. Steingold and Samantha M. Baker of the Law Offices of David S. Steingold PLLC and Shiraz Khan of The Shiraz Law Firm PLLC.

The government is represented by Joshua S. Smith of the Michigan attorney general's office.

The case is Bailey et al. v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al., case number 25-1608, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

--Editing by Stephen Berg.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.