Opinion ID: 2975396
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Captain Dana Darling

Text: Second, the district court considered an incident of abuse that occurred in May 1998. This incident is evidenced by two Use of Force Committee Reports. JA 77-91; JA 268-73. Neither report affords a complete picture of the incident. What is clear is that numerous officers participated in prolonged, violent efforts to subdue and restrain a combative inmate, Anthony Secession, and that excessive force was used. When Secession was finally subdued, he needed medical attention. Although several officers were involved, Walker focuses on Captain Dana Darling, who is white, the on-duty shift supervisor, as having been similarly situated. There is no indication that Darling was directly involved in restraining Secession. Rather, the Use of Force Committee preliminarily determined that Darling was at fault for having exercised poor judgment by allowing two officers who had been involved in forcefully restraining Secession to then transport him to the infirmary, where they further abused him. JA 269. There is no evidence that Darling witnessed, authorized or approved the abuse; he erred by not taking appropriate steps to prevent it. Darling was disciplined for his misfeasance in the form of a demotion from Captain to correction officer. According to Walker, the demotion lasted only three months. Walker dep., JA 706. - 10 - No. 06-3900 Walker v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction The district court concluded that Darling was not similarly situated because he answered to a supervisor other than Warden Thomas and was himself a supervisory officer, not a front line correction officer. These distinctions are indisputably relevant. Moreover, Darling’s exercise of poor judgment, which exposed an inmate to further physical abuse by subordinate officers, is vastly different misconduct than that committed by Walker. Under these circumstances, considering the dissimilarities between the two situations, the differences in discipline meted out to Darling and Walker cannot reasonably be deemed to give rise to an inference of race discrimination. The district court did not err in concluding that Darling was not similarly situated.