IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

PHILLIP LUMAR LOWE #2027814 §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § W-20-CA-557-ADA

§

CPT. PARKER, ET AL., §

 Defendants. §

DEFENDANTS WILLIAM WHITAKER JR., COREY LEACH, BRITTNEY 

HAMILTON, AND BRENT BERRIDGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants William Whitaker Jr. (“Whitaker”), Corey Leach (“Leach”) Brittney Hamilton

(“Hamilton”), and Brent Berridge (“Berridge”) submit this motion for summary judgment pursuant 

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5612(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth in this motion, 

Whitaker, Leach, Hamilton, and Berridge are entitled to dismissal of the claims brought by Plaintiff

Phillip Lumar Lowe (“Lowe”). 

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

At the relevant times to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Lowe was an offender incarcerated in the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) at the Hughes Unit, in Gatesville, Texas.

1

 Lowe brings this 

action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lowe has sued five former and current 

employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice alleging a laundry list of claims including an 

excessive use of force, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and the failure to protect him 

from another offender, retaliation and other claims. 

Lowe was ordered by this court to file a more definite statement and specifically detail the 

allegations against the Defendants Whitaker, Leach and Hamilton, the following allegations are taken 

 

1 He is currently serving a 20-year sentence for aggravated robbery. Due to the aggravated nature of his 

conviction, he is not eligible for mandatory supervision or discretionary mandatory supervision. 

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 14
2

from Lowe’s Original Complaint (ECF No. 1) and his More Definite Statement (ECF No. 9). 

Captain Daniel Parker- On August 16, 2019, Lowe alleges he approached Captain Parker

outside the 8 Building Chow hall and gave him notice both verbally and in writing that he was subject 

to an assault by his cellmate G. Gomez. Lowe alleges Parker was deliberately indifferent to a serious 

risk of harm. ECF No. 1 at 3 and No. 9 at 1.

2

 

Sgt. William Whitaker- On August 17, 2019, the day after the assault, Lowe alleges he was 

coerced by Sgt. Whitaker to write a statement to the administration stating he was no longer in danger 

at the Hughes Unit. Lowe further alleges Whitaker failed to open an Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) investigation into the August 16 incident. Lowe alleges this activity is/was “criminal organized 

fraud.” (ECF No. 1 at 3 and No. 9 at 3.) Lowe does not allege a physical injury from any of the actions 

of Whitaker. 

Correctional Officer Brent Berridge- Lowe alleges that on September 17, 2019, Berridge

was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need and did not allow him to seek medical attention. 

Lowe alleges Berridge then used excessive force him when he refused to comply with orders. Lowe 

alleges this use of force was in retaliation for a grievance he filed regarding the incident with his 

cellmate. ECF No. 1 at 3 and No 9 at 2. 

Correctional Officer Corey Leach- allegedly wrote Lowe an erroneous disciplinary case on 

him for fighting with another offender. Lowe claims that Leach specifically wrote “no injury had 

taken place.” Lowe alleges this activity is/was “criminal organized fraud.” ECF No. 1 at 3 and No. 9 

at 4. Lowe does not allege a physical injury from any of the actions of Leach. 

Brittney Hamilton- Law Library Supervisor allegedly denied him access to the law library 

denying him the opportunities to “to learn penal codes and employee roster to strengthen my lawsuit 

 

2 Defendant Parker is not moving for summary judgment at this time as Lowe has alleged facts that create a fact issue 

which cannot be resolved with the current record. 

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 14
3

for criminal and federal state laws that have been broken.” ECF No. 1 at 3 and No 9 at 5. Lowe does 

not allege he has missed any filing deadlines in any current or past litigation. Lowe is seeking 

compensatory and punitive damages. 

On August 26, 2020, Defendants Parker and Berridge filed their original answer and jury 

demand, asserting their entitlement to qualified immunity. ECF No. 18 at 2. Defendants also asserted 

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Id. 

Defendants Leach, Whitaker and Hamilton filed a motion to dismiss on August 26, 2020, 

moving for dismissal of all claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)6). Defendants Leach, Whitaker, 

and Hamilton also asserted their entitlement to qualified immunity. ECF No. 19.

On September 14, 2020, the Court converted Defendant Leach, Whitaker and Hamilton’s 

motion to dismiss to a summary judgment. ECF No. 26. 

Defendants hereby move for summary judgment on all remaining claims.3

I. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants now move, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56, for summary judgment in its favor

on Lowe’sremaining claims. Lowe has presented no evidence supporting his assertion that hisrights, 

as protected by the U.S. Constitution, were violated by Defendants. There is therefore no genuine 

issue as to any material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In support of its motion, Defendant attaches the following:

Exhibit A: Phillip Lowe’s Grievances Nos. 2020001043, 20200016518, 

2020019726 and 2020117304, with investigations;

Exhibit B: Philip Lowe’s Grievances Nos. 2020021472 and 2020022826 

returned as untimely; 

II. RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS4

 

3 Defendants hereby adopt and incorporate their motion to dismiss and rely upon all arguments put forth in said motion. 

4 Defendants accept these facts as true for summary judgment purposes only, and expressly reserve the right to contest 

these facts at trial if necessary.

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 3 of 14
4

1. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Philip Lowe was incarcerated at the Alfred Hughes Unit 

in Gatesville, Texas.

2. Captain Daniel Parker, Sgt. William Whitaker Officer Corey Leach, Officer Brent Berridge 

and Law Librarian Brittney Hamilton were employed as correctional officers or correctional 

staff at the Hughes Unit during the relevant times listed in this lawsuit. . 

3. On August 17, 2019, Lowe was involved in an altercation with his cellmate. ECF No. 1.

4. On September 3, 2019 Lowe filed Grievance No. 2020001043. ECF No. 1 at 013-014, Exhibit 

B at 059-060. This grievance alleged he has provided Parker with sufficient information to 

prevent an assault and seeks a transfer off of the unit. 

5. Grievance No. 2020001043 does not mention Leach, Martinez, Berridge or Hamilton.

6. On September 18, 2019, Lowe and Correctional Officer Berridge were involved in a use of 

force incident. ECF No. 1.

7. On October 14, 2019, Lowe filed Grievance No. 2020021472 complaining of assault and 

excessive force by Berridge. This grievance was returned as untimely. Exhibit A at 006-008.

8. On October 16, Lowe filed Grievance No. 2020022826 complaining of assault and excessive 

force by Berridge. This grievance was returned as untimely. Id. at 002-003.

9. Lowe failed to file a Step 2 appeal for Grievance No. 2020021472 and No. 2020022826. 

Exhibit A. 

10. After the September 17, 2019, incident Berridge wrote disciplinary case No. 20200023719, 

alleging Lowe created a disturbance. Exhibit B at 089.

11. On October 3, 2019, Lowe attended the disciplinary hearing for case No. 20200023719. 

During the hearing he became disruptive and was removed. He was found guilty and assessed 

45 days of commissary and cell restriction. Id. at 086.

12. On October 9, 2019, Lowe filed his Step 1 Grievance No. 2020019726, specifically seeking to 

overturn the guilty finding of the October 3, 2019, disciplinary hearing. Id. at 079-80.

13. On January 31, 2020, TDCJ responded to the Step 1 Grievance No. 2020019726, finding no 

procedural errors and upholding the guilty finding. Id. at 080.

14. On February 7, 2020, Lowe timely filed his Step 2 Grievance for No. 2020019726. Lowe again 

sought to overturn the guilty finding. Id. at 078.

15. TDCJ denied Lowe’s Step 2 Grievance regarding his disciplinary case. Id. at 079.

16. In March 2020, the Hughes Unit in compliance with COVID-19 protocols, restricted all 

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 4 of 14
5

movement on the facility to help control the spread of COVID-19. Id. at 005 and 015.

17. Law Library access for all offenders in TDCJ was conducted via indirect access. Id.

18. Lowe continued to ask to personally go to the law library in person. Id. at 004-005. 

19. On May 5, 2020, Lowe filed Step 1 Grievance No. 2020117304 alleging he was being denied 

“a lay in” to physically go to the law library. Id. at 004.

20. On June 5, 202, TDCJ responded to Lowe’s Step 1 grievance, denying his allegation and 

explaining that he needed to request legal materials via indirect access. Id. at 005 and 015.

21. On June 10, 2020, Lowe timely filed his Step 2 Grievance for No. 2020117304. Lowe 

specifically claimed he was being denied “lay ins” to physically go to the Law Library. Id. at 

002-003. 

22. On July 10, TDCJ denied Lowe’s Step 2 Grievance. Id. at 003.

III.ISSUES OF LAW5

1. Did Lowe administratively exhaust his claims against William Whitaker Jr., Corey 

Leach, Brittney Hamilton and Brent Berridge, as required by §1997(e)?

2. Lowe has not stated a claim for violations of the Texas Penal Code;

3. Lowe has not identified a protected liberty interest in his due process claim against 

Leach.

4. Lowe Fails to State a Claim for Denial of Access to Courts against Defendant 

Hamilton. 

5. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

IV.ARGUMENT

A. Legal principles.

1. Summary judgment.

Summary judgment is appropriate if the record discloses “no genuine dispute asto any material 

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Hyatt v. Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 

(5th Cir. 2016), citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome 

 

5

Issues of law 2, 3, 4, and 5 were briefed in Defendants Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 19. Defendants adopt and incorporate 

those arguments for this motion. 

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 5 of 14
6

of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute is genuine if 

the summary judgment “evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the [nonmovant].” Id. “Unsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation are 

not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” Anyafulu v. EquiCredit Corp. of Am., 16-20180, 

2016 WL 7009097, at *2 (5th Cir. Nov. 30, 2016), citing Brown v. City of Houston, 337 F.3d 539, 541 

(5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

2. Lowe has failed to administratively exhaust as required by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a).

According to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a): “No action shall be brought with respect to prison 

conditions under Section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any

jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted.” The purpose of this exhaustion requirement is 1) to “give an agency an opportunity to

correct its own mistakes with respect to the programs it administers before it is haled into federal 

court” and 2) to allow for claim resolution in proceedings before an agency because it is faster and 

more economical than litigation in federal court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006). Unexhausted 

claims cannot be filed in federal court. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (emphasis added). A prisoner

is required to exhaust his administrative remedies even if damages are unavailable through the 

grievance process. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 734 (2001). The Supreme Court has held that the 

exhaustion requirement requires “proper exhaustion,” meaning that “a prisoner must complete the 

administrative review process in accordance with the applicable rules, including deadlines, as a

precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” Woodford, 548 U.S. at 2387. 

“The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is no-nonsense. Inmates seeking to challenge 

prison conditions must exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before 

challenging prison conditions in court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The provision is mandatory, 

and courts have zero discretion to hear unexhausted claims. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 6 of 14
7

(2007). Indeed, the Supreme Court has “reject[ed] every attempt to deviate” from the PLRA’s 

rigid exhaustion requirement, most recently in Ross v. Blake, where it emphatically held that 

there is no “special circumstances” exception. 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1855 (2016).” Valentine v. 

Collier, 956 F.3d 797 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam).

 TDCJ provides a two-step procedure for processing administrative grievances and provides 

inmates with detailed instructions on how to do so. Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 515–16 (5th Cir. 

2004). The inmate must properly complete both the Step One complaint and Step Two appeal to 

exhaust his administrative remedies. See Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001). To 

initiate the grievance process, an inmate must first file a Step One grievance. Johnson, 385 F.3d at 515. 

A Step One grievance must be filed within fifteen days of the complained-of incident, and the 

grievance is addressed by the prison administration at the inmate’s unit of assignment. Id. If an inmate 

is dissatisfied with the response to a Step One grievance or if he receives an adverse decision to his 

Step One grievance, he may file a Step Two grievance within ten days. Id. By filing a Step Two 

grievance, the inmate is effectively appealing the unit-level response. The investigations into and

resolutions of Step Two grievances are handled at the state level. Id. An inmate must pursue a grievance 

through both steps for it to be considered exhausted. Id.

Though inmates are not required to include specific legal theories in their grievances to 

properly exhaust, they must however, meet a threshold of specificity in order to do so. Johnson 385 

F.3d at 518. “In deciding how much detail is required in a given case, we believe that a court must 

interpret the exhaustion requirement in light of its purposes, which include the goal of giving

officials “time and opportunity to address complaints internally.” Id. at 516 (citing Porter v. Nussle,

534 U.S. 516, 525, (2002)). Thus, a grievance should be considered sufficient to the extent that the 

grievance gives officials a fair opportunity to address the problem that will later form the basis of

the lawsuit. Id. at 517. In addition, the level of specificity required “should be interpreted in light 

of the grievance rules of the particular prison system, here the TDCJ.” Johnson, 385F.3d at 516. 

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 7 of 14
8

Further, the amount of information necessary will likely depend on the type of problem of which 

the inmate is complaining. For example, the Johnson Court went on to state: 

“an inmate claims that a guard acted improperly, we can assume that the

administrators...would want to know—"and a prisoner could ordinarily be expected to

provide—" details regarding who was involved and when the incident occurred, or at

least other available information about the incident that would permit an investigation of the 

matter.” Id. at 517.

Lowe has asserted to this court that he exhausted his administrative remedies against these 

individual defendants has required. Defendants disagree and allege that Lowe failed to properly 

grieve any of the complaints made in this lawsuit. 

Lowe attached grievances No. 2020001043, No. 20200016518, No. 2020019726 and No. 

2020117304, to his original complaint as proof that he complied with the grievance process. ECF 

No. 1. Defendants have attached all investigations into the four grievances listed by Lowe as

Exhibit B to this motion. 

A. Grievance No. 2020001043-August 17, 2019, incident with cellmate.

Lowe filed Grievance No. 2020001043 on September 3, 2019, regarding the incident with 

his cellmate. ECF No. 1 at 10-11, Exhibit B 059-060. This is the only grievance filed by Lowe 

regarding the alleged attack in the cell. In this grievance, Lowe describes Captain Parker’s failure 

to take action on his behalf prior to the alleged assault. Lowe does not mention any other 

defendants, including Leach. To the extent Lowe alleges that he grieved all claims arising out of 

the August 17 incident, Grievance No. 2020001043 wholly fails to give prison “officials a fair

opportunity to address the problem that will later form the basis of the lawsuit.” Johnson, 385 F.3d 

at 515. 

B. Grievance No. 2020021472 and Grievance No. 20200228266

On October 14, 2019, Lowe filed Grievance No. 2020021472 complaining of assault and 

 

6 Lowe attached neither of these grievance to his complaint.

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 8 of 14
9

excessive force by Berridge. Since this grievance was not filed within fifteen days of the incident, it 

was returned as untimely. Exhibit A at 002-003. Lowe did not file a Step 2 appealing this decision.

Id.

On October 16, 2019, Lowe filed Grievance No. 2020022826 again complaining of assault 

and excessive force by Berridge. Again, this grievance was not filed within fifteen days of the 

incident, it was also returned as untimely. Exhibit A at 006-007. Lowe did not file a Step 2 appealing 

this decision. Id. 

These are the only attempts by Lowe to properly exhaust his claims against Berridge for any 

of his action alleged in this lawsuit. Although it is true that Berridge is mentioned throughout several 

of Lowe’s grievances, he either did not comply with the exhaustion procedure as required, or he 

requested relief wholly separate from the allegations made in the Step 1 or Step 2 complaint (see 

below). Lowe has failed to administratively exhaust all claims against Berridge and they must be 

dismissed. 

C. Grievance No. 20200016518-Complaints about Transient Housing.

Lowe filed Grievance No. 20200016518 on October 1, 2019, regarding his assignment as a 

G5 offender to transient housing. Lowe also attempts to grieve various verbal interactions with 

Berridge. Exhibit B at 017-033. Lowe does not complain about the use of force with Berridge on 

September 17, instead he describes comments made by Berridge several days afterwards.7 Exhibit 

B at 018-019. Lowe’s Step 2 Grievance is more specific regarding the relief he is seeking from 

prison officials, namely a transfer out of transient housing. Id. at 016-017. Lowe’s step 2 Grievance 

fails to mention Berridge or any of the defendants. 

 

7Allegations of verbal abuse or mere threatening language do not present actionable claims under § 1983. Bender 

v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1993); McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 

U.S. 998 (1983) (quoting Cyle v. Hughs, 436 F.Supp. 591, 593 (W.D. Okla. 1977)) (“[A]s a rule, ‘mere threatening 

language and gestures of a custodial officer do not, even if true, amount to a constitutional violation.’”).

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 9 of 14
10

 Grievance No. 20200016518 wholly fails to address any of the claims present in this 

matter. It is irrelevant and again failed to give prison “officials a fair opportunity to address the

problem that will later form the basis of the lawsuit.” Johnson, 385 F.3d at 515. 

D. Grievance No. 2020019726-Disciplinary Case No. 20200023719

Lowe filed Grievance No. 2020019726 on October 9, 2019, regarding the disciplinary case 

he received for the use of force on September 17, 2019, with Berridge. Exhibit B at 079-080. Lowe 

describes the incident Berridge but does so in reference to his disciplinary case. Lowe seeks to 

overturn the finding by Disciplinary Captain Martinez. Id. at 080. In the relief requested section of 

the grievance, Lowe seeks another investigation into the hearing and the findings by Martinez. Id.

Lowe’s Step 2 Grievance also fails to properly exhaust any claims against Berridge (or any other 

defendant), again seeking to have his disciplinary case overturned. 

E. Grievance No. 2020117304-Access to Law Library

Lowe filed Grievance No. 2020117304 on May 5, 2020, complaining that he is being denied 

access to the law library. Id. at 004-005. Lowe’s complaint in this grievance concerns his failure to 

be “laid in” for a visit to the law library. A lay in is done to allow an offender to attend an activity 

on the facility, such as a medical appointment or a visit to the law library. In March of 2020, 

COVID-19 began to impact the State of Texas. In reaction to the growing pandemic, and in the 

interest of public/offender safety, TDCJ began limiting movement on the facilities under General 

order No. 817437. Id. at 005, 015. 

The Step 1 response indicated that TDCJ Units were on limited movement because of 

COVID-19 and that offenders were being given “indirect access” to the law library. Indirect access 

means that offenders should request those materials needed. Id. A review indicated that Lowe had 

not requested any legal materials, but instead requested “lay ins” that were prohibited under 

pandemic conditions. Id. Lowe cannot produce any grievances regarding his access to the law 

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 10 of 14
11

library, that put the TDCJ on notice that any of its employees, including Hamilton were violating 

Lowe’s rights or doing anything that may be violative of policy. 

Lowe has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against Berridge, Leach, Hamilton 

and Whitaker. His failure to exhaust is fatal to these claims and they should be dismissed with 

prejudice. 

3. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when their conduct does not 

“violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law which a reasonable person would have 

known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Wallace v. Cnty. of Comal, 400 F.3d 284, 289

(5th Cir. 2005). Qualified immunity balances two important interests: (1) the need to hold public

officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and (2) the need to shield officials from

harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. Pearson v. Callahan,

555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). Government officials retain the protection of qualified immunity

“regardless of whether the government official’s error is ‘a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a

mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.’” Id. (quoting Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 567

(2004)).

The qualified immunity analysis has two steps. Pearson, 55 U.S. at 236. “First, [the Court

should] assess whether a statutory or constitutional right would have been violated on the facts

alleged.” Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391, 395 (5th Cir. 2004). Second, the Court should

“determine whether the defendant’s actions violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional

rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Id. (citing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739

(2002)). A right is clearly established if the law is clear in a particularized sense, such that a reasonable

official would be put on notice that her conduct is unlawful and violates the right in question.

Wernecke v. Garcia, 591 F.3d 386, 392–93 (5th Cir. 2009). The order in which the two steps are

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 11 of 14
12

addressed is left to the discretion of the courts in light of the circumstances in the particular 

case at hand. Pearson, 55 U.S. at 236

Qualified immunity claims must be evaluated in the light of what the officer knew at the

time she acted, not on facts discovered subsequently. Lytle v. Bexar Cnty., Tex., 560 F.3d 404, 411 (5th

Cir. 2009). A defendant may raise the defense of qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Backe v. LeBlanc, 691 F.3d 645, 648 (5th Cir. 2012). A

plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity asserted in a motion to dismiss must

plead specific facts that, if true, would allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 

defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. Id. 

Here, Lowe fails to plead specific facts to show that Whitaker, Leach or Hamilton violated a 

clearly established constitutional right. 

V. PRAYER

Defendants William Whitaker Jr., Corey Leach, Brent Berridge and Brittney Hamilton ask 

the Court to grant this motion and dismiss with prejudice all claims brought against them.

Respectfully submitted.

KEN PAXTON

Attorney General of Texas

 

BRENT WEBSTER

Assistant Attorney General

SHAWN COWELS

Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

SHANNA E. MOLINARE

Assistant Attorney General

Chief, Law Enforcement Defense Division

Respectfully Submitted,

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 12 of 14
13

/s/ BRUCE R. GARCIA

BRUCE R. GARCIA

Assistant Attorney General

Attorney-in-Charge

State Bar No. 07631060

Law Enforcement Defense Division

Office of the Attorney General

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

(512) 463-2080 / Fax (512) 936-2109 

Bruce.Garcia@oag.texas.gov 

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

I, BRUCE R. GARCIA, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, do hereby certify that I have 

electronically submitted for filing, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Summary 

Judgment, in accordance with the Electronic Case Files System of the Western District of Texas, on 

this 6

th of November 2020.

/s/BRUCE R. GARCIA

BRUCE R. GARCIA

Assistant Attorney General

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 13 of 14
14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, BRUCE R. GARCIA, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, do hereby certify that a true 

and correct copy of the foregoing has been served to all parties of record in this case via the Court’s 

electronic noticing system and via first class mail CMRRR on this 6

th day of November 2020.

Phillip Lumar Lowe, TDCJ #2027814 CMRRR 7008 0500 0001 5048 6873

TDCJ Hughes Unit

3201 FM 929

Gatesville, TX 76597

/s/BRUCE R. GARCIA

BRUCE R. GARCIA

Assistant Attorney General

Case 6:20-cv-00557-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 14 of 14