Downard v. Martin et al

Filing 64

ORDER VACATING the Courts previous order dismissing Defendants claims. It is further ORDERED, on remand, that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts One, Three, and Four is GRANTED. This case is hereby CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 9/29/2020. (cw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KAREN DOWNARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF RUSSELL L. MARTIN,
ET AL.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 2:17-CV-560

JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

Magistrate Judge Vascura

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before this Court pursuant to the Sixth Circuit’s remand order issued upon
resolution of Defendants’ interlocutory appeal.
This Court granted Defendant Martin and Ayers’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to all
Counts and denied Defendants Foley and Wallace’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts
One, Three, and Four, with respect to Plaintiff’s motion brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio
Revised Code (“O.R.C.”) § 2744. (ECF No. 59). Plaintiff’s motion was filed with respect to the
conditions of confinement of Tye L. Downard, who committed suicide in his cell at Delaware
County Jail while awaiting a preliminary hearing. Plaintiff serves as administrator of Tye’s estate
and was married to Mr. Downard. Specifically, this Court found that there was sufficient evidence
from which a reasonable jury could determine that Defendant Wallace disregarded a serious risk
of harm posed to Mr. Downard, and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether
Defendants Wallace and Foley acted in a reckless manner.
Defendants Foley and Wallace appealed, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity
and state-law immunity as officers at the Delaware County Jail. (ECF No. 60). The Sixth Circuit

1

reversed, finding Defendants Foley and Wallace are entitled to qualified immunity and state-law
immunity. (ECF No. 63).
Given the Sixth Circuit’s finding of qualified immunity and state-law immunity, this Court
does not need to engage in a discussion of the merits of these claims.
In keeping with the Court of Appeals’ decision, and this Court’s opinion and judgment
denying qualified immunity (ECF No. 59), it is ORDERED that the Court’s previous order
dismissing Defendants’ claims is VACATED. It is further ORDERED, on remand, that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts One, Three, and Four is GRANTED.
This case is hereby CLOSED.

_______________
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: September 29, 2020

2