Opinion ID: 4556490
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dispute over whether Goldson was leg-shackled

Text: Further supporting Bard’s theory of Goldson’s death is the genuine factual dispute over whether Goldson was bound in leg shackles after COs Dunning and Schadle left his cell. This dispute is material because it is undisputed that Goldson was restrained in leg shackles at the time he entered the cell, and Bard argues that the officers left Goldson with “some type of collar around the neck connected to the shackles that tightened as Mr. Goldson struggled thereby causing his asphyxiation. . . . [I]t was by the manner of struggling with the leg shackles and neck collar” that led to his death. Appellant Br. at 19 (emphasis added).14 The district court held that Bard had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to contest the officers’ testimony that the leg shackles were both (1) taken off of Goldson and (2) removed from the cell. Bard, 2019 WL 590357, at . The defendants-appellees agree, and argue on appeal that “[t]he available evidence establishes that the officers removed the leg shackles from Mr. Goldson prior to exiting the cell,” citing COs Dunning’s and Schadle’s deposition testimony. Appellee Br. at 43. The defendants-appellees acknowledge, however, that the “available evidence” on this point is “in the 14Although the dissent initially faults Bard for “present[ing] no evidence that leg shackles cause asphyxiation,” the opinion goes on to acknowledge the potential relevance of leg shackles to this case. J. Nalbandian Op. at 42 (“[I]t’s irrelevant whether Goldson’s legs were bound absent evidence of a restraint around his neck.”) (emphasis added). As the dependent clause of this statement demonstrates, it is the dissent’s belief that Bard lacks evidence of a neck restraint that, in its view, makes the leg-shackling issue irrelevant. But if a neck restraint did exist, the reverse would be true. That is, if Bard has adduced evidence of a neck restraint—which we believe she has, see supra Part II.D.2—then attaching leg shackles to this restraint could make it more likely that a struggling inmate would strangle himself. No. 19-3468 Bard v. Brown Cty., Ohio et al. Page 27 form of sworn deposition testimony”—that is, there is no visual evidence showing the officers removing leg shackles from the cell. Id. at 9. This is a critical flaw in the defendants-appellees’ argument: The available visual evidence, which captures every officer’s entry into and exit out of Goldson’s cell, shows that Goldson was bound in leg shackles upon entering cell 15, and does not clearly show anyone exiting with the leg shackles, supporting the inference that they stayed strapped onto Goldson’s body once the officers left his cell. Hallway Video at 0:56–1:20. In fact, neither CO Dunning’s testimony nor CO Schadle’s testimony specifically identifies any of the items that they removed into the hallway as leg shackles. See Appellee Br. at 43 (citing R. 75-5 (Dunning Dep. at 104–05) (Page ID #2271–72); R. 76-1 (Schadle Dep. at 84–86) (Page ID #3051–53)). The fact that the hallway video does not clearly show the officers removing the leg shackles from the cell supports the conclusion that they remained on Goldson. Furthermore, CO McKinzie twice clarified in her deposition testimony that she collected Goldson’s transport belt and handcuffs—but not his leg shackles—for evidence after Goldson was placed in his cell. See R. 75-8 (McKinzie Dep. at 113, 138) (Page ID #2838, 2863). It is true that, as the district court explained, CO McKinzie “stated clearly to the BCI that she saw the officers remove the leg shackles from holding cell 15 before locking Goldson in the cell,” Bard, 2019 WL 590357, at , but at the summary-judgment stage, her sworn statements still support the inference that she did not collect the leg shackles because they remained on Goldson’s body. The undisputed fact that Goldson entered cell 15 bound in leg shackles, the lack of any dispositive evidence showing that the officers removed these leg shackles from the cell, and CO McKinzie’s testimony that she did not collect the leg shackles from the cell support the inference that Goldson remained bound by this item when the officers left his cell. Based on the foregoing evidence, the district court erred in concluding that Bard had provided insufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find that Goldson was restrained in leg shackles when he died.