# Gibson v. Champlin

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · August 20, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10665125

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** August 20, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10665125

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence could not lead the trier of fact to find for the non-moving party
- concluding that an official capacity suit against a township’s agent was “superfluous” because the township was also named as a defendant
- concluding that an inmate’s outfit and housing assignment did not make it obvious that inmate was on suicide watch when both the outfit and housing assignment had an “explanation . . . besides the suicide watch explanation”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

CARA GIBSON,
Administratrix of the Estate of
David Thomas Gibson,
:

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21-cv-4588

Judge Sarah D. Morrison

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A.

Preston Deavers

:
MATT CHAMPLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
Tommy Gibson was booked into the Gallia County Jail on September 8, 2019.
On September 14, he hung himself from the bars of his cell with a County-issued
blanket. Tommy’s widow, Cara, filed suit seeking to hold the County liable for
Tommy’s death. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 4.)
The matter is now before the Court on three motions: a Motion for Summary
Judgment (Mot., ECF No. 63); a Motion for Leave to File Surreply (ECF No. 81);
and a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority (ECF No. 84). The latter two
(ECF Nos. 81, 84) are GRANTED. The first requires more discussion.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Tommy was booked into the Gallia County Jail.
David Thomas Gibson went by Tommy. By age 27, Tommy had a wife, two
children, and a drug addiction. He was arrested on September 8, 2019, after his wife
and mother filed complaints alleging that his drug abuse had led to violence. (See
ECF No. 63-1, PAGEID # 774–78, 804–06.)
Tommy was booked into the Jail by Officer Cheyenne Rucker. (Champlin

Dec., ECF No. 63-1, ¶ 6.) Officer Rucker completed a Medical Questionnaire that
asked about Tommy’s drug use and suicide risk. (ECF No. 63-1, PAGEID # 792; see
also id., PAGEID # 887.) According to the questionnaire, Tommy reported no drug
or alcohol use, no depression, no history of self-harm, and no suicidal thoughts. (Id.,
PAGEID # 792–93.)
The Jail has four housing units for male inmates: Blocks A, B, C, and D.
(Brumfield Dep., ECF No. 70, 40:11–13.) Tommy was initially housed in A Block.

Jonathan Sammut, another inmate in A Block, had gone to school with Tommy.
(Sammut Dep., ECF No. 69, 12:10–19.) According to Mr. Sammut, Tommy came into
the Jail with “emotions . . . running wild.” (Id., 15:14–25.) Tommy was also sick,
“sweating a lot,” “complaining of a headache,” and “in and out of the bathroom,
diarrhea.” (Id., 16:25–17:2.) Mr. Sammut testified that Tommy asked a “heavyset”
corrections officer1 “if he could get something for his head. He told him he’d see

what he could [get]. Never came back.” (Id., 17:12–15, 20:12.) After shift-change, he

1 Mr. Sammut described the first officer as heavyset with short, dark hair,
tattoos, glasses, and a mustache. (Sammut Dep., 20:12–21:4.) Ms. Gibson does not
argue that any of the Individual Defendants match this description.
recalls that Tommy asked a “thinner” officer2 for medicine for diarrhea, headache,
and depression. (Id., 17:17–22.) The thinner officer told Tommy
he didn’t know what to tell him, he didn’t have any medicine for him,
that there was no medicine listed on his file, so they wasn’t going to give
him anything.
(Id., 17:23–18:2.) Finally, Mr. Sammut testified that Tommy spoke with Officer
Brooklyn Stapleton3 about “getting him something at least for the diarrhea and the
vomiting. But it never came of anything.” (Id., 31:20–32:3.)
Mr. Sammut was released from Gallia County Jail on September 10, 2019.
For the two days that their detention overlapped, Mr. Sammut watched Tommy
suffer from illness and depression without aid. (Id., 33:18–24.)

B. Tommy’s mother raised alarms about his mental health on
September 13, 2019.
Around noon on September 13, 2019, Tommy called his mother, Sherry
Russell. (Russell Dep., ECF No. 57, 32:7.) Tommy admitted that he had been
abusing Suboxone and methamphetamine when he assaulted her days before. (Id.,
33:13–16.) Tommy’s mother is a nurse, and he told her that he had not been given
any withdrawal medications. (Id., 33:9–13.) Tommy also admitted to Ms. Russell
that he was contemplating self-harm. (Id., 34:10.) When Ms. Russell hung up the
phone, she called Sheriff Matt Champlin, with whom she had a long personal and

2 Mr. Sammut described the second officer as about 5’7” and built with dark
hair and tattoos on his arms. (Sammut Dep., 23:1–24.) Ms. Gibson does not argue
that any of the Individual Defendants match this description.
3 Officer Stapleton denies that this interaction occurred. (See Stapleton Dec.,
ECF No. 63-5¶ 15.)
professional relationship, and told him that Tommy was suicidal; she asked him to
help Tommy get medical attention. (Id., 36:3, 9–11.) Sheriff Champlin said he
would. (Id., 36:22–37:5.)

Sheriff Champlin then directed Lieutenant Kevin Werry to have Tommy
evaluated by the Jail’s mental health provider, Hopewell Health Centers.
(Champlin Dec., ¶ 12.) Lieutenant Werry, who was not on-site, called the Jail.
(Werry Dec., ECF No. 63-3, ¶ 7.) Officer Debra Smith received the call and arranged
an evaluation. (Smith Dep., ECF No. 55, 95:15–96:2.)
C. Tommy was evaluated by the Jail’s mental health provider,
Hopewell Health Centers.
By the time Officer Smith called Hopewell, Tommy had been moved to D
Block.4 (See Stapleton Dec., ¶¶ 9, 13.) “D Block is an isolation cell where [an inmate]
with a medical, behavioral, or mental health issue can be housed and monitored
more closely[.]” (Id., ¶ 16.) D Block includes a bed, a small table, and a toilet with a

sink. (Phillips Dec., ECF No. 77-2.) There are two doors to D Block: the first is a
solid metal door that opens into the hallway; the second is a door of metal bars. (Id.)
Between the two doors is a small vestibule with a surveillance camera facing the
inmate’s living quarters, but a belligerent inmate had recently broken D Block’s
camera and light fixture. (Id.; Bennett Dep., ECF No. 74, 87:9–19, 91:21–25.) So,
when Tommy was there, the only available light came from the fluorescent fixtures

4 Nothing in the record establishes who moved Tommy to D Block, when, or
why. This move should have been noted in the Jail logs. (Champlin Dep., ECF No.
68, 92:2–3.)
on the hallway ceiling. If the solid metal door leading to the hallway was closed,
Tommy would have been in complete darkness.
Officer Smith went to D Block to tell Tommy that someone from Hopewell

would be coming to speak with him. (Smith Dep., 96:3–6.) Tommy did not react,
“[h]e just looked at [her].” (Id., 107:12–16.) Officer Smith’s shift ended before anyone
from Hopewell arrived. (Id., 102:23–24.) She briefed Officer Stapleton before
departing. (Id., 102:24–25.)
Rebecca Ashburn, a Chemical Dependency Counselor Assistant for Hopewell
Health Centers, arrived at the Jail in the evening hours of September 13, 2019.
(Ashburn Dep., ECF No. 60, 31:1–3.) She was escorted to D Block, where she found

Tommy sitting on his bunk. (Id., 34:9.) Tommy told Ms. Ashburn that he was upset
that his family had not bonded him out. (Id., 35:13–14.) Ms. Ashburn observed that
Tommy was “a little agitated.” (Id., 35:6.) She described the 45-minute-long
evaluation in deposition:
He was very polite, very well-mannered young man. His biggest thing
was that he wanted his family back, and he knew that they—that he
had to get the help he needs. He denied any mental health treatment
before. He denied any substance abuse treatment, not the use, but he’s
never went to treatment before. He said he’d been in the jail for already
a week, could I please just call his mom and ask his mom to pay his bond
to get out.
. . . He did hold my hand and thank me for coming in and talking to him.
And at the time, when I seen him, he denied any suicidal thoughts,
denied any hearing voices or seeing things, denied having a plan. He
said he had them earlier but didn’t really narrow it down when they
were. And so we discussed a safety plan on, you know, if the thoughts
come back, let the [officers] know, I’ll come back and see you. And he—
at the end he shook my hand once again and thanked me very much for
coming and seeing him and stated that he felt better.
(Id., 37:25–38:24.)
Ms. Ashburn told the officers to “leave him in D Block because he was getting
a withdrawal pack[,]” and she planned to have the Hopewell on-call follow-up with

him the next day. (Id., 39:6–11.) She left a copy of her report at the Jail. It says:
Client is a 28 years old caucasin male being seen on emgerency at the
Gallia County Jail. Client states no mental health issues or family
history. Client substance use is subutex and marjuana. Not a good
relastionship with family right now do to his substance use. Client states
that he has had sucial thought but no plan at this time. Client states he
feels anxitiy and depressed to being in Jail. Client did receive a
withdraw packet for Jail N.P. Client state that he need to get out to get
help.
. . .
Client has commited to a stafey plan.
. . .
Leave in D Block for 24 hour for withdraw medication to work per jail
policy.
(ECF No. 63-1, PAGEID # 811 (reproduced as written).)
Jail policy provides that any inmate “identified as having the potential to
become suicidal while in custody” will be placed on Close Watch, with physical
checks every 15 minutes and clothes and blankets removed in favor of a suicide-
resistant vest. (ECF No. 63-1, PAGEID # 919-20; Werry Dec., ¶ 18.) But after he
was seen by Ms. Ashburn, Jail Officers believed that Tommy had been “cleared” and
did not require any special watch. (See, e.g., Rectenwald Dep., ECF No. 73, 23:22–
24:1; Bennett Dep., 104:17–20.) As a result, Tommy was treated like any other
inmate: they checked on him once every hour, he wore an orange jumpsuit, and he
had a blanket.
D. Tommy also began to receive withdrawal medications.
Tommy’s withdrawal pack was delivered to the Jail by Health Department
Medical Assistant Casey Roush. (Alvaro Dep., ECF No. 61, 50:19–24.) Officer
Michael Fink administered the first doses to Tommy at 5:00pm and 9:00pm on

September 13.5 (ECF No. 63-1, PAGEID # 817; see also Fink Dec., ECF No. 63-7,
¶ 12.)
E. In the early hours of September 14, 2019, Tommy asked to call
his wife.
Officer Andrew Rectenwald began his shift at 11:00pm on September 13,
2019. (Rectenwald Dec., ECF No. 63-2, ¶ 7.) Tommy was asleep in D Block and did
not appear to be in any distress. (Rectenwald Dep., 15:11–12.) Officer Rectenwald
testified:
About 1:30 in the morning, I do remember [Tommy] woke up and wanted
to make a phone call. I believe it was to his victim. I know he was in for
a domestic assault. And I advised him, no, that we don’t bring people out
to booking, you know, after business hours or whatever and we can’t be
making calls to a victim. And that was the only time that he was awake
the whole shift.
(Id., 15:13–21.) When asked how Tommy responded to his request being denied,
Officer Rectenwald said:
He wasn’t upset at all. He wasn’t in distress. He wasn’t upset. When I
told him no, he said, okay. He said, I understand. He laid back down in
his rack, and he covered back up and went back to sleep. When I checked

5 The Health Department medical records indicate that Tommy was
prescribed clonidine, ondansetron, hydroxyzine, and dicyclomine. (See ECF No. 63-
1, PAGEID # 815.) The Jail’s Medication Administration Record, however, shows
that Tommy was given clonidine, ondansetron, hydroxyzine, quetiapine, and
cyclobenzaprine. (Id., PAGEID # 817.)
on him a little bit later, he was alseep. He wasn’t mad. He didn’t throw
nothing. He didn’t get mad at me, cuss me out, nothing like that.
(Id., 18:23–19:7.)
But there is some indication that the night was not as peaceful as Officer
Rectenwald remembered. Deputy Amanda Brumfield testified that the now-
deceased Officer Carol Braley told her that Tommy was yelling through the night,
which caused someone to close the outer metal door to D Block with Tommy inside.
(Brumfield Dep., 57:3–13.) No other deponent recalled the outer door being closed.

(See, e.g., Rectenwald Dep., 20:4–17; Bennett Dep., 74:1–5; Stapleton Dep., 19:17–
25.)
F. Tommy attempted suicide on September 14, 2021. He later died
of his injuries.
The next morning, Tommy’s father, Chris, came to visit him at the Jail. (See
ECF No. 63-1, PAGEID # 976.) Officer Emerson Hunter Bennett escorted Tommy to
and from visitation. According to Officer Bennett, Tommy was polite and respectful.
(Bennett Dep., 71:22–72:1, 75:12–21.) But Mr. Gibson recalled that Tommy
appeared “haggard,” “angry and agitated” during the visit. (Gibson Dec., ECF No.
77-4, ¶ 4.) Tommy told his father “that he had been taken out of one hole and been

placed into a deeper, darker, hole.” (Id., ¶ 5.) Mr. Gibson understood the “darker
hole” as a reference to the light in D Block. (Id.) Mr. Gibson ended his visit early
because he did not want to cry in front of Tommy. (Id., ¶ 7.)
An hour after the visit with his father ended, Tommy was found hanging in
his cell. (ECF No. 63-1, PAGEID # 880.) He had twisted his blanket into a noose.
Officer Bennett put his arms through the cell bars to hold Tommy up to relieve
pressure on his neck. (Bennett Dec., ECF No. 63-9, ¶ 21.) An inmate ran for help.
(Id., ¶ 22.) Officer Braley used scissors to cut the blanket. (Id., ¶ 24.) Officer
Bennett performed chest compressions before Tommy was taken to the hospital.

Tommy died of his injuries.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Two years after his death, Cara Gibson filed suit on behalf of herself, her
children, and Tommy’s estate. (ECF No. 1.) The operative Amended Complaint
asserts federal constitutional and state-law claims against Gallia County and
several of its officials. (Am. Compl.) Before reaching the merits of the suit, several
claims and parties require attention.

A. Pseudonymous Defendants
The Amended Complaint names twenty-one pseudonymous Defendants: CO-
15, John/Jane Doe Supervisors #1–10, and John/Jane Doe Corrections Officers #1–
10. (Am. Compl.) Ms. Gibson has not moved to substitute the real names of those
Defendants, nor has she effected service upon them as required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m). Accordingly, all claims against CO-15 and the Doe Defendants
are DISMISSED for failure to timely effect service of process.

B. Officer Carol Braley
On July 27, 2023, Defendants notified the Court and all parties of the death
of Defendant Officer Carol Braley. (ECF No. 42.) The parties then had 90 days to
file a motion for substitution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). No such motion was filed, so
“the action . . . against the decedent must be dismissed.” Id.; see also Boyd v. Smith,
No. 2:12-CV-814, 2014 WL 1050080, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 14, 2014) (dismissing
claims against deceased defendant where “six months ha[d] passed since the filing
of the suggestion of death, and no motion for substitution ha[d] been filed”). All
claims against Officer Braley are thus DISMISSED.

C. Officer Christopher Queen
Finally, Ms. Gibson concedes that “the evidence compiled through discovery
does not create a genuine issue of material fact on” Officer Christopher Queen’s
involvement in the events surrounding Tommy’s death. (Resp., ECF No. 77,
PAGEID # 2202.) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is thus GRANTED
as to Officer Queen.
D. Official Capacity Claims
A lawsuit brought against a public official in his or her official capacity is

treated as a suit against the government entity — the real party in interest.
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). To prove liability, then, a plaintiff
must prove that the entity’s policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. Id.
The same standard is used to prove municipal liability. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). “Courts regularly dismiss as
redundant claims against agents in their official capacities when the principal

entity is also named as a defendant in the suit.” Johnson v. Washington Cnty.
Career Ctr., No. 2:10-CV-076, 2010 WL 2570929, at *4 (S.D. Ohio June 22, 2010)
(citing Von Herbert v. City of St. Clair Shores, 61 F. App’x 133, 140 (6th Cir. 2003));
see also Faith Baptist Church v. Waterford Twp., 522 F. App’x 322, 327 (6th Cir.
2013) (concluding that an official capacity suit against a township’s agent was
“superfluous” because the township was also named as a defendant). Because Ms.
Gibson names Gallia County as a Defendant, her official capacity claims against the
remaining County officials (Sheriff Champlin, Lieutenant Werry, Chief Deputy
Johnson, and Officers Fink, Clay, Stapleton, Rectenwald, and Bennett) are

redundant. Those official capacity claims are DISMISSED.6
* * *
After dismissing the pseudonymous defendants, the official capacity claims,
and Officer Braley, and granting summary judgment to Officer Queen, these claims
and defendants remain:
Count I: Deprivation of Due Process (U.S. CONST. amend XIV)
Deliberate Indifference Theory – Lieutenant Werry, Chief Deputy
Johnson, and Officers Fink, Clay, Stapleton, Rectenwald, and Bennett,
each in their individual capacity
Failure to Implement Policy/Train/Supervise Theory – Gallia County
Count II: Wrongful Death (Ohio Rev. Code § 2124.02)
Lieutenant Werry, Chief Deputy Johnson, and Officers Fink, Clay,
Stapleton, Rectenwald, and Bennett, each in their individual capacity
Count III: Gross Negligence (Ohio common law)
Lieutenant Werry, Chief Deputy Johnson, and Officers Fink, Clay,
Stapleton, Rectenwald, and Bennett, each in their individual capacity
Count IV: Loss of Consortium (Ohio common law)
Lieutenant Werry, Chief Deputy Johnson, and Officers Fink, Clay,
Stapleton, Rectenwald, and Bennett, each in their individual capacity
(Am. Compl.)

6 Because Sheriff Champlin was only sued in his official capacity, this
dismisses him from the action.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). The movant has the burden of establishing there are no genuine

issues of material fact, which may be achieved by demonstrating the nonmoving
party lacks evidence to support an essential element of its claim. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986); Barnhart v. Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co.,
12 F.3d 1382, 1388–89 (6th Cir. 1993). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving
party to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

56). When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).
A genuine issue exists if the nonmoving party can present “significant
probative evidence” to show that “there is [more than] some metaphysical doubt as
to the material facts.” Moore v. Philip Morris Cos., 8 F.3d 335, 339–40 (6th Cir.
1993). In other words, “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a

verdict for the non-moving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; see also Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (concluding that
summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence could not lead the trier of fact
to find for the non-moving party).
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Count I: Federal Constitutional Claim
In Count I of the Amended Complaint, Ms. Gibson alleges that Gallia County,
along with, in their individual capacities, Lieutenant Werry, Chief Deputy Johnson,

and Officers Fink, Clay, Stapleton, Rectenwald, and Bennett (the “Individual
Defendants”), violated Tommy’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by exhibiting
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
1. Ms. Gibson concedes that the Individual Defendants
(except Officer Rectenwald) are entitled to summary
judgment on Count I.
The Individual Defendants raise a qualified-immunity defense to Ms.
Gibson’s deliberate indifference claim. “When the defendant raises qualified
immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant is not
entitled to summary judgment.” Davenport v. Causey, 521 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir.
2008). Qualified immunity is intended to “give[] government officials breathing
room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions.”
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011). Accordingly, “it protects ‘all but the
plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” Id. (quoting Malley v.
Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)).

An official is entitled to qualified immunity so long as he has not violated a
“clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person
would have known.” Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015). The analysis is two-
pronged: Courts must determine first whether the facts make out a violation of a
constitutional right and, second, whether that right was clearly established at the
time of the alleged misconduct. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).
“These two prongs may be addressed in any order. If either prong is not met, then
the government officer is entitled to qualified immunity.” Doe v. Miami Univ., 882

F.3d 579, 604 (6th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
Ms. Gibson contends that the Individual Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to Tommy’s serious medical condition while he was detained. Both
convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees have “a constitutional right to be free
from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs.” Howell v. NaphCare,
Inc., 67 F.4th 302, 310 (6th Cir. 2023). For prisoners, this right arises under the
Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” Greene v.

Crawford Cnty., Mich., 22 F.4th 593, 605 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting U.S. CONST.
amend. VIII). For pretrial detainees, the right derives from the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Griffith v. Franklin Cnty., Ky., 975 F.3d 554, 566
(6th Cir. 2020). For many years, this was a distinction without a difference—courts
in this circuit analyzed both pretrial detainees’ and prisoners’ deliberate
indifference claims “under the same rubric,” requiring a plaintiff to establish both

an objective and a subjective component. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834
(1994); Brawner v. Scott Cnty., 14 F.4th 585, 591 (6th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
To satisfy the objective component, a plaintiff needed to show an “objectively”
serious medical need. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. To meet the subjective component, a
plaintiff had to prove that an officer (i) subjectively knew of facts that created a
substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate, (ii) subjectively concluded that the
substantial risk of serious harm existed, and (iii) responded unreasonably to that
risk. Lawler v. Hardeman Cnty., Tenn., 93 F.4th 919, 926–27 (6th Cir. 2024) (citing
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837); Campbell v. Riahi, No. 23-3793, 2024 WL 3565391, at *3

(6th Cir. July 29, 2024) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835).7
Then in 2015, the Supreme Court considered a similar framework in the
context of excessive force claims. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015).
The Court concluded that, in that context, a pretrial detainee need demonstrate
“only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively
unreasonable,” while a prisoner must prove both objective and subjective
unreasonableness. Id. at 396–97, 400–02. The Sixth Circuit subsequently brought

Kingsley into the deliberate indifference rubric, thereby lowering the subjective
showing required to succeed on such claims brought by pretrial detainees. Brawner,
14 F.4th at 596 (“Given Kingsley’s clear delineation between claims brought by
convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment and claims brought by pretrial
detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment, applying the same analysis to these
constitutionally distinct groups is no longer tenable.”). Now, a “pretrial detainee

must prove more than negligence but less than subjective intent—something akin
to reckless disregard” to succeed on a deliberate indifference claim. Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted); Helphenstine v. Lewis Cnty., Ky., 60 F.4th 305, 316 (6th
Cir. 2023) (“Simply put, Brawner held that Kingsley required us to lower the

7 The Sixth Circuit recommended Campbell v. Riahi for publication; the
decision has not yet appeared in the Federal Reporter, 4th.
subjective component from actual knowledge to recklessness.”), cert. denied, 144 S.
Ct. 692 (2024).
But that is not the end of the story. Earlier this year, in Lawler v. Hardeman

County, Tennessee, the Sixth Circuit counseled that, until Brawner was decided,
Farmer was the “only clearly established law” applicable to a pretrial detainee’s
deliberate indifference claim. 93 F.4th at 927–28. As a result, for actions arising
before Brawner was decided in 2021, a court must apply the higher actual-
knowledge standard from Farmer to determine if an officer is entitled to qualified
immunity. Id.
The Sixth Circuit decided Lawler shortly after briefing on the instant Motion

closed. (See ECF No. 84.) In her Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Ms. Gibson “concedes that the Lawler
case supports granting summary judgment to” all remaining Individual Defendants
except Officer Rectenwald. (ECF No. 85, PAGEID # 2435.) Accordingly, Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the individual capacity claims
against Lieutenant Werry, Chief Deputy Johnson, and Officers Fink, Clay,

Stapleton, and Bennett, each in their individual capacity.
2. Officer Rectenwald is entitled to summary judgment on
Count I.
As a caveat to her concession, Ms. Gibson argues that Officer Rectenwald is
not entitled to qualified immunity, even under the higher Farmer standard. (Id.)
She asserts that Officer Rectenwald knew of facts that “made it ‘obvious’ that a
strong likelihood existed that [Tommy] would commit suicide.” (Id., PAGEID # 2436
(citing Lawler, 93 F.4th at 929 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842)).) The record
shows that Officer Rectenwald knew that Tommy (i) was in D Block; (ii) was on
medications for withdrawal, even though he was not showing any signs or

symptoms of active withdrawal; (iii) had been evaluated by Hopewell, but was not
placed on suicide watch; and (iv) asked to call his wife (the victim of his charged
domestic assault offense) in the middle of the night. No reasonable jury could find
that this collection of facts made Tommy’s suicide an obvious risk.
Ms. Gibson argues that Officer Rectenwald knew about Ms. Russell’s report
to Sherriff Champlin, and had reason to doubt Hopewell’s assessment—in part
because Tommy admitted to Ms. Ashburn that he had, at one time, had a suicide

plan. (ECF No. 85, PAGEID # 2437.) But there is no evidence that Officer
Rectenwald knew about Ms. Russell’s report or the contents of Ms. Ashburn’s
assessment.8 See Greene, 22 F.4th at 607 (explaining that the subjective prong of
the deliberate indifference analysis must look at each defendant individually, such
that knowledge cannot be imputed from one defendant to another).
Officer Rectenwald is thus entitled to qualified immunity on Ms. Gibson’s

deliberate indifference claim; Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED to that extent.

8 Ms. Gibson also argues that Officer Rectenwald knew about the distressing
tenor of Tommy’s visit with his father because “the records or debriefings must have
included” that information. (ECF No. 85, PAGEID # 2437.) But Tommy’s father
visited the jail two hours after Officer Rectenwald’s shift ended on September 14.
(See Rectenwald Dep., 24:9–11; ECF No. 63-13, PAGEID # 976.)
3. Gallia County is also entitled to summary judgment on
Count I.
Counties may not be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of
their employees or agents. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. A county can be held directly
liable only when “an officially executed policy, or the toleration of a custom . . . leads
to, causes, or results in the deprivation of a constitutionally protected right.” Doe v.
Claiborne Cnty., 103 F.3d 495, 507 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690–
91). Ms. Gibson bases her § 1983 claim against Gallia County on allegations that

Jail policy caused a failure to mitigate the risk of Tommy’s suicide. (Resp., PAGEID
# 2204–06.) Her Amended Complaint asserts that Gallia County (through Sheriff
Champlin and Lieutenant Werry) “fail[ed] to adopt policies, train, and/or supervise”
Jail officials in investigating, monitoring, and reporting on inmates’ medical
conditions, and transporting inmates for advanced medical care. (Am. Compl., ¶ 56.)
But Ms. Gibson seems to have abandoned the failure-to-train and supervisory-

liability theories in favor of a claim focused on liability for failure to adopt and
implement effective policies. (Resp., PAGEID # 2204–06.)
A county’s failure to act may be a basis for municipal liability when those
“failures amount[] to ‘a policy of deliberate indifference’ to [the plaintiff’s]
constitutional rights.” Campbell, 2024 WL 3565391, at *5 (quoting Claiborne Cnty.,
103 F.3d at 508). But “a municipality cannot exhibit fault rising to the level of
deliberate indifference to a constitutional right when that right has not yet been

clearly established.” Campbell, 2024 WL 3565391, at *5 (quoting Arrington-Bey v.
City of Bedford Heights, 858 F.3d 988, 994–95 (6th Cir. 2017)). Because the
Individual Defendants did not violate a clearly established right, it follows that
their employer, Gallia County, was not deliberately indifferent to such a right. Id.
Gallia County is entitled to summary judgment on Count I.

B. Counts II, III, IV: State Law Claims
In Counts II, III, and IV, Ms. Gibson asserts wrongful death, gross
negligence, and loss of consortium claims against the Individual Defendants. Ohio
law generally shields municipal employees from such claims, with three exceptions.9
Relevant here, statutory immunity will not apply when the municipal employee’s
acts or omissions were “with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or
reckless manner.” Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03(A)(6)(b).

Ms. Gibson argues that the Individual Defendants acted in a reckless manner
and are thus not entitled to statutory immunity. As the Sixth Circuit recently
explained,
an officer acts in a reckless manner when she consciously disregards or
is indifferent towards “a known or obvious risk of harm to another that
is unreasonable under the circumstances and is substantially greater
than negligent conduct.” That definition creates “rigorous standards”
that are “difficult to establish[.]”
Campbell, 2024 WL 3565391, at *6 (quoting Argabrite v. Neer, 75 N.E.3d 161, 164
(Ohio 2016)). The question thus becomes whether any of the Individual Defendants
acted in a manner that “was so ‘perverse’ as to amount to ‘substantially greater

9 Ms. Gibson also argues that Gallia County is not entitled to statutory
immunity. However, Ms. Gibson did not assert any state-law claims against Gallia
County. (See Am. Compl., ¶¶ 57–62.) Even if she had, Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.60
does not expressly impose civil liability on political subdivisions themselves. See
Hale v. Toth, Nos. 112030, 2023 WL 5444109, at *8 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2023),
appeal denied, 223 N.E.3d 1260 (Table) (Ohio 2023).
than negligent conduct.’” Id. (quoting A.J.R. v. Lute, 168 N.E.3d 1157, 1161–62
(Ohio 2020)).
Ms. Gibson recites each Individual Defendant’s involvement in the

surrounding circumstances and argues that each perversely ignored the obvious
risk of Tommy’s suicide. But no reasonable jury could make such a finding.
Lieutenant Werry. On September 13, Ms. Russell called Sheriff Champlin and
told him that Tommy was depressed and suicidal. Sheriff Champlin then called
Lieutenant Werry and asked him to have Tommy evaluated by Hopewell.
Lieutenant Werry then called the Jail and directed Officer Smith to arrange the
evaluation. When Lieutenant Werry next spoke to the Jail, he was told that Tommy

had been evaluated and that Hopewell concluded that, while he was not suicidal, he
should stay in D Block.
It is unclear whether Lieutenant Werry told Officer Smith that there was a
specific concern that Tommy was suicidal. Even if he omitted that detail, the Court
cannot conclude that Lieutenant Werry acted recklessly—he directed Officer Smith
to have Tommy evaluated by the Jail’s mental health provider, who did not

recommend suicide watch. Howell, 67 F.4th at 315 (explaining that non-medically
trained officers can reasonably defer to a medical professional’s opinion, although
such deference is not absolute or indefinite).
Ms. Gibson further argues that Lieutenant Werry “condoned the use of a non-
medical screener and Defendants’ obliviousness to what she learned[,]” but there is
no evidence that Lieutenant Werry knew anything about Ms. Ashburn’s credentials
or the details of her assessment. Lieutenant Werry was, at most, negligent in failing
to learn those details.
Chief Deputy Johnson. Chief Deputy Troy Johnson performed CPR on Tommy

after his noose was severed. Ms. Gibson asserts that he was also responsible for the
Jail facilities, including the inoperable camera and light fixture in D Block.10 The
camera had broken on September 8, 2019, after an inmate struck it with a trash
can. The same inmate broke the light. Assuming that was his responsibility, Chief
Deputy Johnson was, at most, negligent in failing to repair those facilities more
quickly.
Officer Fink. Officer Fink worked from 3:00pm to 11:00pm on September 13,

2019. He knew that Tommy was in D Block, but did not know why. Although Officer
Fink was on duty when Tommy was evaluated by Ms. Ashburn, he did not speak
with about her assessment or conclusion. Officer Fink also administered Tommy’s
withdrawal packet, which had been hand-delivered by the Health Department.
Although the medications administered were not the medications prescribed, there
is no evidence that Officer Fink was aware of, let alone responsible for, the

discrepancy.
Officer Clay. Officer Misty Clay was not on duty when Tommy was booked or
when he attempted suicide. (Clay Dec., ECF No. 63-8, ¶¶ 6–7.) Officer Clay knew
that Tommy was in D Block for withdrawal, but she did not observe him in any

10 Chief Deputy Johnson’s Declaration states that he “do[es] not have any
involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Gallia County Jail.” (Johnson Dec.,
ECF No. 63-4, ¶ 6.) This dispute is not material to the resolution of the claim.
distress at any time. (Id., ¶¶ 12, 14.) Officer Clay conducted regular check-ins on
Tommy while he was in D Block, and she knew that the camera in D Block was not
operational. There is no basis to find that a corrections officer acts recklessly by

placing a detainee in an observation cell without a working camera when that
detainee is not visibly in distress and the corrections officer conducts regular
observations of the detainee.
Officer Stapleton. Officer Stapleton also knew that Tommy was in D Block—
she brought him dinner on September 13, 2019, and observed him lying down.
Although Officer Stapleton was on duty when Ms. Ashburn evaluated Tommy,
creating a possibility that she could have interrogated Ms. Ashburn’s assessment,

there is no evidence that Officer Stapleton facilitated the evaluation or interacted
with Ms. Ashburn in any way.
Officer Rectenwald. The Court has already concluded that Officer Rectenwald
did not act with conscious disregard. Ms. Gibson argues that Tommy’s mid-night
request to call her (his wife and victim of his domestic assault charges) should have
raised alarm bells for Officer Rectenwald. But without any other indicia of trouble,

the Court cannot conclude that Officer Rectenwald recklessly failed to recognize that
Tommy was suicidal. Cf. Cooper v. Cnty. of Washtenaw, 222 F. App’x 459, 470–71
(6th Cir. 2007) (concluding that an inmate’s outfit and housing assignment did not
make it obvious that inmate was on suicide watch when both the outfit and housing
assignment had an “explanation . . . besides the suicide watch explanation”).
Officer Bennett. Officer Bennett was on duty when Tommy attempted suicide.
At the beginning of his shift, he was told that Tommy was in D Block because he
was detoxing. Officer Bennett was also told that Tommy had been evaluated by

Hopewell, but had not been placed on suicide watch. Officer Bennett escorted
Tommy to and from the visitation bay. While escorting another inmate to visitation,
Officer Bennett found Tommy hanging in his cell. Officer Bennett reached through
the bars of the cell door to relieve pressure on Tommy’s neck and called for help.
When Tommy was cut down, Officer Bennett began chest compressions.
Ms. Gibson argues that Officer Bennett was willfully blind to an obvious
risk—that he “must have known” that the camera was not functioning, “the cell was

pitch black,” that “Tommy was only being sporadically monitored” even though he
was detoxing; and that he “must have observed the emotional fragility Tommy
had . . . displayed to his father” during their notably brief visit. (Resp., PAGEID
# 2201.) Officer Bennett admitted in deposition that he knew the camera was
broken, but explained that a camera is helpful only when an officer is able to
monitor the feed (which, that morning, he was not). (Bennett Dep., 95:1–18.) He

also knew that the light was broken, but testified that it was “not pitch dark” and
that he “had plenty of light to do what [he] needed to do, plenty of light to see
[Tommy]” and “plenty of light to cut him down.” (Id., 68:6–20.) Officer Bennett
followed Jail policy on the frequency of physical checks of Tommy. And, finally, he
found nothing remarkable about Tommy’s affect after visitation, except for how
“polite” and “respectful” Tommy was.
* * *
Ms. Gibson’s arguments, though cogent and moving, “come with the benefit of
hindsight, as well as a degree of reflection.” Campbell, 2024 WL 3565391, at *6. But

“the standard for proving recklessness is high,” and she cannot persuade a
reasonable jury that any of the Individual Defendants’ conduct “was so perverse as
to amount to recklessness under Ohio law.” Id. The Individual Defendants are thus
entitled to statutory immunity on Counts II, III, and IV.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, Ms. Gibson’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply (ECF
No. 81) and Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority (ECF No.

84) are GRANTED. Ms. Gibson’s claims against Corrections Officers Doe #1-10,
Supervisors Doe #1-10, CO-15, and Officer Carol Braley are DISMISSED. Ms.
Gibson’s Official Capacity claims against the Individual Defendants are also
DISMISSED. Finally, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63) is
GRANTED as to all remaining claims.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10665125. Public record. Not legal advice.