CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
In re: CITY OF DETROIT, MICH.,
Debtor.

_________________________________________

MAURIKIA LYDA, JOHN SMITH, NICOLE HILL, ROSALYN WALKER, ANNETTE PARHAM, JANICE WARD, SYLVIA TAYLOR, SCOTT EUBANK, JOANNE JACKSON, and TAMMIKA R. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MICHIGAN WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION; PEOPLE’S WATER BOARD; NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK – MICHIGAN CHAPTER; MORATORIUM NOW!,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF DETROIT, MICH.; DETROIT WATER AND SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 15-2236
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:15-cv-10038—Bernard A. Friedman, District Judge.
Argued: August 2, 2016
Decided and Filed: November 14, 2016
Before: SUTTON, GRIFFIN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. This appeal stems from an adversary proceeding in the City of Detroit’s chapter 9 bankruptcy case. Plaintiffs are customers, and the purported representatives of customers, of the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD). Relying primarily on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), they filed a complaint alleging a series of claims arising from DWSD’s termination of water service to thousands of residential customers. The legal theories underlying plaintiffs’ claims are varied, but the relief requested uniform: “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief stopping water shut offs and restor[ing] service,” and an order directing DWSD “to implement a water affordability plan with income based payments” for residential customers.

Section 904 of the Bankruptcy Code explicitly prohibits this relief. Whether grounded in state law or federal constitutional law, a bankruptcy court order requiring DWSD to provide water service at a specific price, or refrain from terminating service, “interfere[s]” with the City’s “political [and] governmental powers,” its “property [and] revenues,” and its “use [and] enjoyment of . . . income-producing property.” 11 U.S.C. § 904. Plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection claims are, moreover, inadequately pled. Because plaintiffs cannot recover on their state-law or constitutional claims, we affirm the order of the district court affirming the bankruptcy court’s order of dismissal.