Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-22-20465/USCOURTS-ca5-22-20465-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-20465

Summary Calendar

____________

Luke Dwayne Latson, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Captain Jody L. Baker; Marcus D. Williams, Co IV; 

Geraldine Fernandez, Registered Nurse; Rachel M. David, 

LVN, 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CV-4403

______________________________

Before Haynes, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Luke Dwayne Latson, Texas prisoner # 1595322, filed a 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaint stemming from a use of force incident. He appeals the 

district court’s order granting Officer Marcus Williams’s motion for 

summary judgment and dismissing Latson’s claims against Williams, as well 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 13, 2025

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-20465 Document: 112-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2025
No. 22-20465

2

as dismissing his claims against the remaining defendants pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A for failure to state a claim. He argues 

that the district court erred by granting Williams’s motion for summary 

judgment because there were disputed issues of material fact regarding the 

use of force. Latson also argues that the district court’s dismissal of his 

claims against Geraldine Fernandez and Rachel David were improperly 

dismissed because he stated claims against them for conspiracy and for 

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Because Latson does not 

challenge the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Captain Jody 

Baker, he has abandoned any such challenge on appeal. See Brinkmann v. 

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

“This court reviews a summary judgment de novo, using the same 

standard as that employed by the district court.” McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 

F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the 

movant shows that 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). 

This court “review[s] evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

party, but conclusional allegations and unsubstantiated assertions may not be 

relied on as evidence by the nonmoving party.” Carnaby v. City of Houston, 

636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011).

To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim of excessive force, a 

prisoner must show the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” See

Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 

312, 319 (1986)). The “core judicial inquiry” is “whether force was applied 

in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and 

sadistically to cause harm.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). A court may consider (1) “the extent of injury suffered”; (2) “the 

need for application of force”; (3) “the relationship between that need and 

the amount of force used”; (4) “the threat reasonably perceived by the 

Case: 22-20465 Document: 112-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2025
No. 22-20465

3

responsible officials”; and (5) “any efforts made to temper the severity of a 

forceful response.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

A review of Latson’s factual allegations and the videotape shows that 

Latson’s assertions regarding the manner and means in which the force was 

applied are inconsistent with the video footage, and further demonstrates 

that all five Hudson factors weigh in favor of Williams. See id. Latson has not 

shown that the district court erred in concluding that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact regarding Latson’s excessive force claim and 

that Williams is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a).

We review dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

and § 1915A(b)(1) de novo, applying the same standard as when reviewing a 

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). DeMoss v. Crain, 

636 F.3d 145, 152 (5th Cir. 2011). Dismissal is appropriate where a complaint 

does not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

We must take Latson’s factual allegations as true and view them in the 

light most favorable to him. Green v. Atkinson, 623 F.3d 278, 280 (5th Cir. 

2010). Nevertheless, his allegations of a conspiracy involving Fernandez and 

David are insufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Likewise, Latson’s allegations of deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs, taken as true, are insufficient to 

state a plausible claim for relief against David and Fernandez. See Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678; Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). The record 

reflects that Latson received medical treatment following the use of force 

incident. His disagreement with that treatment or the conclusions reached 

by the medical providers does not state a claim for deliberate indifference to 

Case: 22-20465 Document: 112-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/13/2025
No. 22-20465

4

serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. See Domino v. Tex. 

Dep’t. of Crim. Just., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-20465 Document: 112-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/13/2025