IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

ISAAC C. LENSEY, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 2:22-CV-119-Z-BR

§

BOBBY LUMPKIN, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 Plaintiff Isaac C. Lensey (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and while in the custody of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice (‘TDCJ”), brings this action against five Defendants 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, all of whom are alleged to be current or former TDCJ employees, 

complaining of certain COVID-19 mitigation measures taken in his unit of assignment. (ECF 1). 

Two Defendants, Bobby Lumpkin and Bryan Collier, appeared and removed this matter to federal 

court. (Id.). Those Defendants now move for summary judgment, represented by the Attorney 

General of Texas (“OAG”). (ECF 13). For the reasons that follow, it is the recommendation of the 

undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the Motion be 

granted. 

I. INTRODUCTION

As relevant here, Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that TDCJ policy implemented in 

response to the COVID-19 pandemic was cruel and unusual in its deliberate indifference to his 

health. (ECF 1-4 at 4). In particular, Plaintiff alleges that TDCJ maintained crowded prisoner 

housing areas in the Neal Unit and, as a result, he contracted COVID-19. (Id. at 5).

Case 2:22-cv-00119-Z-BR Document 22 Filed 07/12/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 493
II. ANALYSIS

Summary judgment is appropriate in any given case where, after adequate time for 

discovery and upon proper motion, the non-movant has failed to make a sufficient showing to 

establish all elements of a claim asserted. Celotex Corp. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In the 

context of § 1983 actions, government officials cannot be held responsible for the conduct of 

their subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Therefore, plaintiffs “must plead 

that each [g]overnment official defendant, through the official’s own actions, has violated the 

Constitution.” Id.

With those principles in mind, the undersigned must examine the particulars of Plaintiff’s 

removed Amended Complaint for allegations against Lumpkin and Collier, those Defendants 

who now move for summary judgment. Plaintiff is entitled to a liberal reading of his filings. 

Andrade v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 538, 543 (5th Cir. 2006). However, the most careful reading 

serves only to confirm that Plaintiff cannot succeed here. 

Plaintiff has filed suit against Defendants in both their official and individual capacities. 

(ECF 1-4 at 14–16). Plaintiff’s official capacity claims are barred by Defendants’ Eleventh 

Amendment immunity. Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 142 S.Ct. 522, 532 (2021). As to the 

individual capacity claims, on a page labeled “VI. Legal Claims,” Plaintiff alleges Defendant 

Lumpkin “acted with deliberate indifference...by continuing to maintain crowded prisoner 

housing at max capacity” during the pandemic. (ECF 1-4 at 16). As to Defendant Collier, 

Plaintiff only alleges that he is “legally responsible” for the welfare of prisoners in TDCJ 

custody. (Id at 11). Neither of these allegations approach the standard required. 

Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Collier are plainly deficient because they do not 

tread beyond a respondeat superior theory barred in § 1983 actions. The allegations against 

Case 2:22-cv-00119-Z-BR Document 22 Filed 07/12/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 494
Defendant Lumpkin, on the other hand, contain specific allegations but have no substance behind 

them. Plaintiff only alleges that Lumpkin “acted” to maintain prison housing at an unsafe level, 

without ever elaborating beyond conclusory legal recitations. (Id. at 16). This case is more than 

two years old, when counting its pendency in state court. (Id. at 10). If Plaintiff was willing or 

able to develop to facts that would support maintaining Defendants Lumpkin and Collier in this 

action, he would have done so by now.1 Accordingly, summary judgment should be granted in 

their favor. 

III. RECOMMENDATION

It is the recommendation of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to the United 

States District Judge that the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF 13), be granted and Defendants 

Bobby Lumpkin and Bryan Collier be dismissed from this action.

IV. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of these Findings, Conclusions 

and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

ENTERED July 12, 2023.

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In 

the event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections 

is fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the 

signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by 

electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the 

1 Even if Plaintiff had supplied facts to show the personal involvement of Defendants Lumpkin and Collier, 

the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that TDCJ took timely and appropriate steps to protect inmates from the 

pandemic. Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797 (5th Cir. 2020); Valentine v. Collier, 993 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2021).

Case 2:22-cv-00119-Z-BR Document 22 Filed 07/12/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 495
fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the 

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections 

with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A 

party’s failure to timely file written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds 

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal 

conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district 

court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en 

banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as recognized in ACS 

Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 

F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988).

Case 2:22-cv-00119-Z-BR Document 22 Filed 07/12/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 496