A recently filed federal lawsuit alleges that a pretrial detainee was subjected to unconstitutional treatment while held at a county jail, raising concerns about the use of restraints and access to medical care for individuals in custody. The complaint was filed on March 10, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio by Brenda Weitzel, acting as administrator on behalf of the estate of David Simmons. The defendants named include Ashland County Commissioners Michael Welch, Denny Bittle, and James Justice; Sheriff Estel Wayne Risner; Captain Joseph Perry; several deputies; unknown jail staff; and a contracted medical provider referred to as Jane Doe Corporation.
According to the filing, David Simmons was detained at Ashland County Jail from September 2 to September 13, 2024, as a pretrial detainee. The complaint states that Simmons suffered from chronic Crohn’s Disease requiring regular medication and use of a colostomy bag. It is alleged that from the beginning of his detention, Simmons repeatedly requested medical assistance but was “ignored, disregarded, and/or overlooked” by jail deputies.
The document outlines that on or around September 8, 2024, after allegedly being denied adequate care for his condition, Simmons used an eating utensil in an attempt to receive attention for his medical needs. He was then transported to University Hospital Samaritan for treatment before being returned to the jail on September 10. Upon return, it is claimed that he was told he would be punished with placement in a restraint chair—a device intended for uncooperative or dangerous inmates according to jail policy.
The lawsuit asserts that despite being compliant and non-combative during transport and upon return from the hospital, Simmons was placed in a restraint chair wearing only a hospital gown. He remained restrained in Holding Cell 2 for over sixty-five hours between September 10 and September 13—far exceeding both internal policies and manufacturer guidelines cited in the complaint. Jail Policy 927 reportedly requires physical checks every ten minutes and removal from restraints once cooperation is achieved; it also prohibits use of restraint chairs as punishment.
Throughout this period, the complaint alleges that Simmons’s requests for basic hygiene—including bathroom access and showering—were dismissed or ignored by both deputies and contracted medical personnel. It further claims that his vital signs were not checked at required intervals and his colostomy bag was emptied infrequently despite repeated complaints about discomfort.
The suit describes multiple instances where deputies made dismissive or derogatory remarks toward Simmons regarding his requests for help. On one occasion detailed in the filing, a deputy allegedly told him he could “sit in here and rot.” Other allegations include failure by deputies to follow policies related to walks outside the restraint chair or provision of clothing beyond a hospital gown.
According to court documents, these actions are described as deliberate indifference amounting to excessive force under color of state law. The plaintiff claims violations of substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment through deliberate indifference to both excessive force via prolonged restraint use and denial of necessary medical care.
The complaint also raises issues regarding oversight responsibilities held by county commissioners over sheriff operations. It alleges systemic failures including inadequate training on proper restraint procedures among staff members as well as a pattern or custom within Ashland County Jail tolerating excessive force or deficient medical treatment toward detainees with serious health conditions.
Among other legal arguments presented are counts asserting gross negligence against all defendants based on their duty of reasonable care owed to detainees like Simmons. The plaintiff further alleges failure-to-train claims against supervisory officials responsible for approving extended restraint use.
For relief, Brenda Weitzel seeks compensatory damages exceeding $75,000—including amounts for pain and suffering—as well as punitive damages against all defendants based on allegations their conduct was “wanton, reckless, and deliberate.” Attorney names are not specified within this portion of the court filing. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-00581.
Source: 126cv00581_Weitzel_v_Welch_Complaint_Northern_District_Ohio.pdf
