Opinion ID: 4536379
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Treasurer Dillon

Text: Andy Dillon was Treasurer for the State of Michigan when the City was in the process of switching to Flint River water. Dillon was asked to assess the cost effectiveness of staying with the DWSD or switching to the KWA. See id. at 39–40, ¶ 104 (Page ID #17842–43). Dillon ultimately recommended to Snyder that the Governor authorize the City to switch to the KWA, after Dillon learned that the City could fund the switch with an ACO that would require use of Flint River water in the interim. Id. at 41, ¶ 107 (Page ID #17844). Dillon was part of the core team that developed the interim Flint River plan, see id. at 44, ¶ 119 (Page ID #17847), and he knew that the FWTP would need to undergo significant upgrades before it could treat the water 9 We note, without passing judgment, that the district court dismissed Governor Snyder from the action in Guertin. See Guertin v. Michigan, No. 16-cv-12412, 2017 WL 2418007, at  (E.D. Mich. June 5, 2017). It did so because there were no plausible allegations in that case that Governor Snyder personally was involved in the decision-making process for using Flint River water. Id. The plaintiffs’ theory in Guertin was that Snyder should be on the hook merely because he appointed the City Managers who helped to create and sustain the crisis. Id. The same cannot be said here, as Plaintiffs have alleged Snyder’s personal actions and knowledge in great detail. Nos. 19-1425/1472/1477/1533 Waid et al. v. Snyder et al. Page 35 properly, id. at 44, ¶ 122 (Page ID #17847). In spite of what he knew, the Treasury pressed the MDEQ to secure the ACO quickly, so that the switch to the Flint River would take place before the FWTP was ready. Id. at 130, ¶ 383 (Page ID #17933). Plaintiffs-Appellees ask that we remand for the district court to decide whether to dismiss Dillon from this case. Defendants-Appellants do not protest that request. After we accepted this appeal, the district court dismissed Dillon as a defendant in a separate Flint Water Crisis case, Brown v. Snyder (In re Flint Water Cases), No. 18-cv-10726, 2020 WL 1503256, at  (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2020). The district court recently discovered that Dillon was not Treasurer at the time of the actual switch to Flint River water in April 2014. Id. at  n.13. In light of that, the district court found that Dillon did not have authority over the switch and, therefore, that he cannot be found liable. Id. Without passing judgment on that decision, we see no issue with Plaintiffs-Appellees’ request that we remand for the district court to decide in the first instance whether to dismiss Dillon in light of that fact. See Lopez v. Foerster, 791 F. App’x 582, 586 (6th Cir. 2019) (“Although we have jurisdiction to decide the qualified-immunity question, given the unique circumstances of this case, we remand to the district court to consider the issue in the first instance.”).