The case centers on the death of Mark Anthony Silva, who was stopped for a traffic violation on October 15, 2023, by Officer Donald J. Kreager, Jr. of the Genoa Police Department. According to the complaint as recited by the court, Silva was experiencing an altered mental state and had a known history of mental health issues. He told officers he needed medication, and EMTs transported him to St. Charles Hospital in Oregon, Ohio. After his discharge, Kreager handcuffed him in the hospital parking lot. When Silva wandered away, Kreager deployed his taser twice, then took him to the ground with force on a sidewalk. Kreager called for backup and continued to restrain Silva, pushing on his head, neck, and chest while Silva repeated that he was going to die. Officers from the Oregon Police Department — Sandwisch, Gable, Webb, and Martin — then joined in the restraint. The complaint alleges Sandwisch struck Silva's body with his knee, yanked his cuffed wrists over his head, and knelt on his forearm while Kreager climbed on top of Silva and pushed down on his back. Silva eventually went silent and stopped moving. Officers continued to hold him down and re-cuffed him before turning him over to find his lips had turned blue. Approximately two minutes after Silva went silent, Kreager asked whether he should start chest compressions; no officer attempted chest compressions, CPR, or called 911. Silva did not survive.
Judge James R. Knepp II granted plaintiff Mark Silva, Jr.'s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint adding the Village of Genoa and the City of Oregon as defendants. The proposed complaint alleges both municipalities lacked any policies governing prone restraint, on-ground restraint, and positional asphyxia, and provided officers no meaningful guidance on the risks associated with those tactics despite their recurrent use.
On the failure-to-train theory, the court held there is no rigid requirement for multiple prior incidents before a Monell claim may proceed. Citing Sixth Circuit precedent, the court explained that a plaintiff may show deliberate indifference through a single violation of federal rights accompanied by a showing that the municipality failed to train employees to handle recurring situations presenting an obvious potential for such a violation. The court cited Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893 (6th Cir. 2004), in which the Sixth Circuit held that it is clearly established that putting substantial or significant pressure on a suspect's back while in a face-down prone position after being subdued and/or incapacitated constitutes excessive force, and that creating asphyxiating conditions by placing body weight on the back of an incapacitated and bound suspect constitutes objectively unreasonable excessive force. The court concluded that because officers routinely confront physical restraint situations and prone restraint presents a known constitutional risk, the plaintiff plausibly alleged an obvious need for training.
The court rejected the municipalities' ratification argument in part. It held that a post-incident failure to investigate or discipline cannot alone establish Monell liability for an injury that already occurred, and that to proceed on a ratification theory a plaintiff must show not only an inadequate investigation in the specific instance but also a clear and persistent pattern of violations in earlier instances. Because the plaintiff cited only his own incident, that theory failed at the pleading stage — though the court noted the alleged failure to discipline could still be used as evidence supporting a defective-policy theory.
The court also rejected arguments of undue delay and undue prejudice, finding that the plaintiff required discovery to plausibly state the municipal claims and that the hardships cited by defendants — including the prospect of additional depositions — were insufficient to bar amendment while discovery remained open.
Separately, the court granted a joint motion to stay the case after a notice of suggestion of death was filed indicating that plaintiff Mark Silva is deceased. The case is stayed until June 30, 2026, when the court will hold a telephone status conference, pending appointment of an estate administrator.