Opinion ID: 4556490
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dispute over feasibility of hanging

Text: The existence of a factual dispute over whether Goldson could have physically hanged himself is without question. Indeed, nowhere in the defendants-appellees’ brief do they argue that Bard has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute on this issue, and as the district court concluded, “Plaintiff does establish a question of fact as to whether Goldson physically could have hung himself in holding cell 15 by tying a sheet around the sprinkler assembly.” Bard, 2019 WL 590357, at . This finding is plainly correct given the forensic analysis of Bard’s expert, which concluded that Goldson could not have hanged himself, the affidavit of Dustin Downing (despite any indication that it lacks trustworthiness, see id. at  n.8), the testimony of Dr. Varnau regarding the implausibility of Goldson hanging himself, see, e.g., R. 74-15 (Varnau Dep. at 224) (Page ID #225), and the evidence of Goldson’s finger impairment, R. 97-3 (Booking Finger Prints at 1–2) (Page ID #3949–50).11 Thus, as all parties seem to agree, a jury could conclude that Goldson was not capable of hanging himself. We need not decide whether this genuine dispute alone would have been sufficient to defeat the defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment, given the other evidence supporting Bard’s opposition to the motion, as follows. 11This dispute is apparent even without considering the evidence that Goldson remained handcuffed and/or leg-shackled in his cell, see infra, which would clearly make it less likely that he could have hanged himself. No. 19-3468 Bard v. Brown Cty., Ohio et al. Page 21