Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-40965/USCOURTS-ca5-13-40965-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Campos
Appellee
Evelyn Castro
Appellee
Davis
Appellee
Adam R. Gonzalez
Appellee
Brad Livingston
Appellee
Eleazar Vasquez
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40965

Summary Calendar

ELEAZAR VASQUEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DIRECTOR BRAD LIVINGSTON; DAVIS, Senior Warden Name Unknown; 

MAJOR ADAM R. GONZALEZ; MAJOR EVELYN CASTRO; NURSE 

CAMPOS, Name Unknown,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CV-131

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eleazar Vasquez, Texas prisoner # 1642342, appeals the dismissal of his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim and as frivolous under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). He contends that he stated 

a claim for relief because he alleged that, when an inmate named Burns 

sexually assaulted him, strict prison policies had been violated that required

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 1, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-40965 Document: 00513215815 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2015
No. 13-40965

2

prison transport areas to be clear of general population inmates when

protective status inmates such as Vasquez were present. He asserts that 

prison officials have a duty to protect inmates from violence by other inmates 

and that officials must take reasonable measures to abate a known risk of 

serious harm to an inmate’s safety. He contends that the defendants were on 

notice of the risks he faced because he had been placed in protective status. 

Vasquez does not address the district court’s determination that the 

defendants were immune in their official capacities under the Eleventh 

Amendment. Nor does he challenge the court’s determination that he failed to 

state a claim against the director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

and the warden of the prison in their personal capacities because he did not 

allege that they were directly involved or that they had enacted 

unconstitutional policies. Accordingly, Vasquez has abandoned his claims 

against those two defendants. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff 

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). He likewise fails to raise and thereby 

abandons any argument that the defendants were liable for damages resulting 

from a later, nonviolent encounter with Burns. See id.

We must determine whether Vasquez stated a claim that defendants 

Adam Gonzalez and Evelyn Castro were deliberately indifferent to a 

substantial risk of serious harm to him at the time of the sexual assault. See 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994); Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 

373 (5th Cir. 2005). While “prison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners 

from violence at the hands of other prisoners,” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), not “every injury suffered by 

one prisoner at the hands of another . . . translates into constitutional liability 

for prison officials responsible for the victim’s safety,” id. at 834. “To violate 

the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, a prison official must have a 

 Case: 13-40965 Document: 00513215815 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/01/2015
No. 13-40965

3

sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Id. at 834 (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). A prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he 

subjectively “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety.” 

Id. at 837. The existence of an objective risk to the inmate’s safety alone is 

insufficient to establish that a particular defendant disregarded that risk. Id.

at 837-38. 

Vasquez alleged that the response by Gonzalez and Castro following the 

sexual assault by Burns was inadequate. He did not allege facts showing that 

they knew at the time of the sexual assault that he was at risk and that they 

failed to take action to protect him. Accordingly, he failed to state a claim that 

the two were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to 

him at the time of his sexual assault. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837-38; Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th 

Cir. 1999). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-40965 Document: 00513215815 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/01/2015