Opinion ID: 2975396
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: CO William Flesch

Text: Third, the district court considered the example of CO William Flesch, a white correction officer who had been under defendant Warden Thomas’s supervision when he injured an inmate in May 2002. Flesch was in the process of restraining a resisting but handcuffed inmate, McDaniel. Believing that McDaniel was about to spit at him, Flesch spun McDaniel around and took him to the floor. Monyak Investigation Report, JA 71-74. As his head struck the floor, McDaniel sustained a cut near his left eyebrow that required stitches. Id. The Use of Force Committee concluded that Flesch’s use of force was unjustified and excessive. JA 259. Institutional Investigator Monyak also investigated the matter. He disagreed with the committee’s conclusion and recommended against imposing discipline for assault. Monyak Report, JA 74. He noted that McDaniel was verbally and physically resisting Flesch. At worst, Monyak concluded, the facts showed a failure by Flesch to protect McDaniel as he avoided being spat upon. Id. Warden Thomas rejected the committee’s conclusion and approved Monyak’s recommendation. Flesch was not disciplined. - 11 - No. 06-3900 Walker v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction The district court characterized Flesch as “closer” to being a similarly situated non-minority employee. That he was subject to the direction and supervision of Warden Thomas, the same supervisor as Walker, is a circumstance that certainly makes comparison of the discipline received by him more probative than the discipline received by Weeda and Darling. However, in comparison to Walker’s case, the district court found the evidence against Flesch to be weaker and the excess force employed by Flesch to be less serious. Opinion p. 7, JA 19. The distinction was aptly drawn in Monyak’s report: “The type of force used by Officer Flesch clearly does not rise to the level of an assault (such as an intentional punch to the face).” JA 74. Indeed, the culpability of the officers’ wrongdoing cannot be measured simply by the seriousness of any resulting injury to the inmate. Whereas in Flesch’s case, inmate McDaniel incidentally sustained injury as Flesch forcefully subdued him, inmate Thomas’s injuries were sustained as a direct result of intentional and clearly unjustified blows delivered by Walker. That Walker was more severely disciplined than Flesch stands to reason. The nature of each officer’s misconduct is too dissimilar to justify any inference that Warden Thomas’s differential treatment of them reflects racially discriminatory animus.