United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-20183

Summary Calendar

Raymond Lumsden, on his own behalf and on behalf of 

those similarly situated, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; Mark 

Harris, Warden, in both his individual and official 

capacity; Ronald Givens, Warden, in both his individual 

and official capacity; John Doe, Major Robinson, in 

both his individual and official capacity; John Doe, 

Major Castillo, in both his individual and official 

capacity, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-4470

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 2, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-20183 Document: 00515550786 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2020
No. 19-20183

2

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Raymond Lumsden, Texas prisoner # 2109472, appeals the dismissal 

for failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Lorie Davis. 

Lumsden argues that he pleaded facts showing Davis’s personal 

involvement. Specifically, Lumsden asserts that Davis knew of 

unconstitutional conditions of confinement and that she allowed deplorable 

conditions in the Polunsky Unit to remain unresolved. He also contends that 

Davis is responsible, in her capacity as Director of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice, for every employee at the Polunsky Unit and that she should 

be held liable under § 1983. 

A district court shall dismiss an IFP civil rights complaint if the court 

determines that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A plaintiff fails to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted when the claim does not contain “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). We review a dismissal for failure to state 

a claim under § 1915(e)(2) de novo. Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th 

Cir. 1998).

Lumsden argues that he sent letters to Davis detailing the conditions 

and acknowledges that he received a response in the form of an inspection 

and a phone call. His complaint did not allege that Davis was responsible for 

a deficient policy that resulted in injury; rather, his complaint indicated that 

there were policies in place implemented by Davis and that others were not 

abiding by the policies. The district court did not err in dismissing the § 1983 

* 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.

 Case: 19-20183 Document: 00515550786 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2020
No. 19-20183

3

claims against Davis in her individual capacity. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 

F.2d 294, 303 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Lumsden does not challenge the district court’s finding that his claims 

against Davis in her official capacity were barred by the Eleventh 

Amendment. Nor does he challenge the district court’s conclusion that his 

claim for an injunction was moot. Accordingly, Lumsden has abandoned 

those issues by failing to brief them. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 

(5th Cir. 1999).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Lumsden’s 

motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

 Case: 19-20183 Document: 00515550786 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/02/2020