970 F.3d 738
6th Cir.2020Background
- On Oct. 4–5, 2013 Zachary Goldson was transported to and from a hospital after swallowing a pen; during transport he freed restraints, assaulted Deputy Justice, and was re-restrained and taken to the Brown County Jail.
- Video shows Deputy Wedmore making repeated, highly threatening statements to Goldson (including “I’d like to break your fucking neck right now”) shortly before Goldson’s death.
- Officers Dunning and Schadle placed Goldson in holding cell 15 at ~2:32 a.m.; officers say they removed restraints and exited by ~2:34 a.m.; a few minutes later officers discovered Goldson hanging by a bedsheet from the sprinkler escutcheon and he was later pronounced dead.
- Investigations produced conflicting findings: the Brown County Coroner later listed homicide by strangulation; Montgomery County pathologists said death was consistent with hanging/suicide; Ohio BCI and a grand jury concluded suicide. Plaintiff’s expert (forensic animation) said physical hanging in the cell was infeasible.
- Disputes of material fact include whether Goldson was left with leg shackles and/or a hobble‑strap or collar around his neck and whether he could have self‑hanged; these factual disputes underlie Bard’s § 1983 claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on nearly all claims; Bard appealed. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part (as to COs Dunning and Schadle) and affirmed in part, and remanded for trial on the death-related excessive‑force claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bard) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation/forfeiture: Which claims were preserved on appeal? | Bard says she preserved claims challenging how Goldson died and related deprivations, including removal from cruiser and medical care. | Defendants contend Bard forfeited many theories by failing to develop them earlier. | Court: Bard preserved the self‑strangulation/excessive‑force theory; many other claims were forfeited, though the lead opinion also treated cruiser‑removal and some medical‑care issues as preserved. |
| Excessive force — removal from cruiser (Corporal Huff) | Huff yanked Goldson by lower body while already restrained, causing upper body to hit floor; this was excessive force and not justified. | Defendants say immediate force was necessary because Goldson had recently attacked an officer and was a threat; surrounding officers had no opportunity to intervene. | Court: Genuine dispute existed that Huff’s removal may have been excessive; surrounding officers lacked opportunity to intervene. Qualified immunity denied as to Huff on this discrete claim. |
| Excessive force / cause of death — placement in cell; self‑strangulation theory (Dunning & Schadle) | Officers left Goldson restrained or with a neck/leg connection (hobble‑strap/dog leash) that tightened when he struggled, causing self‑strangulation; coroner testimony and expert analysis create triable issues. | Defendants say evidence supports suicide by hanging; they deny leaving any neck restraint and rely on their testimony plus BCI/grand jury findings. | Court: Reversed summary judgment as to Dunning and Schadle; material factual disputes (feasibility of self‑hanging, coroner testimony, whether leg shackles remained, Wedmore’s threats) preclude qualified‑immunity dismissal—case remanded for trial as to death. |
| Deliberate indifference / inadequate medical care after discovery | Bard contends CPR/stabilization was inadequate or stopped and officers colluded to withhold care. | Defendants assert either they attempted/resumed care or reasonably concluded Goldson was dead; qualified immunity applies. | Court: Summary judgment affirmed for defendants on deliberate‑indifference/medical‑care claims; Bard failed to show clearly established unlawfulness or sufficient admissible evidence of collusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective‑reasonableness standard for use of force)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity framework and relation to constitutional‑violation inquiry)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment: non‑movant must present evidence on which jury could reasonably find)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard: subjective knowledge of risk)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (considerations for claims by pretrial detainees regarding conditions/use of force)
- Fazica v. Jordan, 926 F.3d 283 (6th Cir.) (liability may attach to multiple officers present where specific actor need not be identified at summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment: non‑movant must show admissible evidence sufficient to create genuine issue)