Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set fo rth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. See Farmer v. B rennan , 5 1 1 U .S

. 8 2 5 , 8 3 3( 1 9 9 4). 1 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40157 Su m m ar y Cal endar

D AR YL L D AV I S P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. W AYNE N T UCKER; M I CHAEL R M CDUFF I E D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea l s f

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 9: 07- C V

- 19

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * I n m a t e Da r y lDa v i s a p p e a l s t h e di s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s di s m i s s a lo f h i s 4 2 U. S

. C. § 198 3 acti on , i n w h i ch h e al l eges p riso n e m pl oyees fai l ed to protec t hi m f rom t w o assault s perpetr ated on h i m b y ot h er i n m ates. S peci f i cal l y, D avis al l eges 1 t h at O f f i cer T u cker tol d O f

f i cer M cD u f

f i e t h at D avis ha d reported M cD u f f i e f or t ak i n g p a y m en t s f

rom i n m ates an d that t o ret al i ate M cD u f f i e arrang ed f

or United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 2, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40157

Randolph v. C

ervantes , 1 3 0F .3 d 7 2 7 , 7 2 9

– 3 0( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 7). 2 Farmer , 51 1 U .S. at 837 (deliberate indifference r equires that “th e o fficial mu st bo th 3 be aware of facts from whichthe infere nce could be drawn that asub stanti al risk of seriou s h arme xis ts , a n d h e mu stals o dr aw th e infe re n ce .”). See Adames v. P

erez , 3 3 1 F .3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). 4 2 m em bers of

t h e M an di n go W arri ors pri son cl i qu e t o assaultD avis

. D avis al so brou gh t sui t aga i n st t w o ot h er of f i cers , D en n i s D ezeeuw an d Ju st i n G i l bert , f or i gno r i ng i nf

o r m at i o n s ugg e s t i ng D av i s w as i n dang e r of a s s aul t a nd n o t t ak i ng act i on t o preven t t h e assault s. T h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en t i n favor of O f f i cers T u cker
a n d M cD u ff

i e. W e rev i ew a distri ct cou rt’ s gr a n t of su m m a ry j u d gm en t de no vo and exam i ne the evi denc e i n t he l i ght m os t favor abl e t o t he nonm ovi ng par t y. 2 R eg a rd in gO ffi ce r T u ck e r, th e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en tbecau se,
e v e n a s s u m in gT u c k e r in fo r m e d M c D u ffie th a t D a v is s n itc h e d o n h im , th e r e is
n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o r d e s ta b lis h i n g t h a t T u c k e r w a s a w a r e th a t M c D u ffie
w o ul d r e t al i at e a ga i ns t D av i s . The di s t r i c t co ur t di d noter r and w e af f i r m t he 3 gran t of sum m ary j u dg m en t i n favor of T u cker. T h e d i st ri ctcou rterred, h ow ever, in g ran t i n g sum m ary j u dg m en t i n favor of O f f i cer M cD u f

f i e. I f M cD u f f i e paid i n m ates t o assaultD avis , as D a v is’
com pl ai n t al l eges, t h i s obvi ou sl y w ou l d ri se t o a levelof del i berate i n di f ference be yo nd t hatpr o t e c t e d b yq u a l i f i e d i m m uni t y. The di s t r i c t c o ur t , ho w e ve r , f o und 4
no c om pet ent s um m ar y j udgm ent ev i d en c e s upport i ng D avi s’al l egat i on t hat M c D uf f i e o r de r e d t he hi t o n Davi s o r kne w o f an i m pe ndi ng hi t o n Davi s . The di st ri ctcourt ’ s f

i n di n g i gn ores i n t erof f i ce c om m u n i cat i on s bet w een pri son
o ffic ia ls in d ic a tin gt h a t s e v e r a l in fo r m a n ts a s s e r te d t h a t O ffic e r M c D u ffie p a id t h e M an di n go W arri ors t h i rt y pa cks of B u gl er t obacco t o assault D avis

. I t al so ig n o r e s th e a ffid a v it of in m a te J a m e s G r a n t a s s e r tin gth a t O ffic e r M c D u ffie to ld hi m t hat Tu c kerhad c hew ed hi m out f or ac c ept i ng i t em s f

r om i nm at es and t hatN o. 08- 40157

Hu t ch ins v. McDan ie ls , 5 1 2 F .3 d 1 9 3 , 1 9 5( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7). 5 See Joh nsonv. J

ohnson , 3 8 5F .3 d 5 0 3 , 5 2 6

–2 7( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 4). 6 Davis’ c omplaint also all eges th at “Dezee uw and the rest o f th e a dmini stration” fail ed 7 top ro te cthimb ec au seh e isab lacko ff ende r. Th e di strictc ourtdidn ota ddre ss Davis ’ discriminationcl aim, whichwe c onstru e a s anE qual Protec tionC la use clai m. I n order to st atea cl aim of raci al di sc ri mi n ation u n de r th e E qu al Pro te ctio n C lau sea n d § 1 9 8 3 , ap laintiff must de monstrate thatth e governme ntal o fficial was motiv ated byintention al discrimination on th e b a si s of

r ace . Cole ma n v. H

oustonInd. Sch. D is t. , 11 3 F .3d 5 28, 533(5th Cir. 1 997). We noteth at Davi s’ b ald assertion of di scrimin atio n is not supp orted byany evidence in the recor d. Neals v. Norwood , 5 9F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 3( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 5 ).

8 3 h e k n e w o f M c D u ffie ’ s co n d u c t b e c a u s e D a v is h a d “t o ld h im e v e r y th in g .” T h is evi den ce r ai ses a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i al fact w i t h res pect t o w h et h er M cD u f f i e vi ol ated D avis ’E i gh t h A m en dm en t ri gh t s. Th e d i s t r i c t c o ur t di s m i s s e d t he c l ai m s a ga i ns t O f f i c e r s D e z e e uw a nd Gi l b e r t u nd e r 2 8 U. S. C. § 1 9 1 5 A(b ) ( 1 )

. W e r e v i e w a d i s t r i c t c o ur t ' s d i sm i ss al
u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 A de no vo . Davi s ’c l ai m a ga i ns t D e z e e uw faul t s hi m f o r no t pl ac i ng 5 D avis i n prot ect i ve custody despit e D eze e u w h a vi n g evi den ce t h at i n m ates i nt e nde d t o as s aul t D av i s . D e z e e uw , ho w e ve r , di d no t i gno r e t he i nf o r m at i o n, bu t sough t t o obtai n cor roborat i on bef ore t ak i n g f

u rt h er act i on . T h is w as a
r e a s o n a b le re s p o n s e to a p o te n tia l ris k

. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r r in 6 d i s mi s s i n gt h e c l a i ms a g a i n s t De z e e u w. 7 D a vis’cl a i m ag a i n st G i l b ert fau l ts G i l b ert f or leav i n g D a vis vu l n era b l e to t h e sec on d assau l t w h en G i l bert fai l ed take prop e r m easu res af t er t h e f

i rst at t ac k, s uc h a s f

i l i ng di s c i pl i nar y c har ge s a ga i ns t the perp e t r at o r s o r pl ac i ng D avis i n prot ect i ve custody. A l l egati on s of n egl i gen t or u n reasona bl e act i on are
no t s u f f i c i e n t t o s t a t e a c l a i m u n d e r t h e Ei g h t h Am e n d m e n t
. Th e r e i s no 8 evi denc e t hat G i l ber t w as aw ar e of fac t s f r om w hi c h he s houl d have i nfer r ed t hat
no t f i l i ng di s c i pl i nar y c har ge s w o ul d r e s ul t i n a sub s t ant i alr i s k o f D av i s b e i ngN o. 08- 40157

Ulmer v. Ch ancello r , 6 9 1 F .2 d 2 0 9 , 2 1 2 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 2 ). 9 4 at t ac ke d a ga i n. W hi l e w e do no t c o ndo ne G i lbe r t ’ s i nac t i o n, i t doe s nota m o unt t o del i berate i n di f

ference. La s t l y , Da v i s mo v e s f o r a p p o i n t me n t o f c o u n s e l u p o n r e ma n d

. An att orney sh ou l d be ap poi n t ed to an in d igen t i n a § 1983 case on l y i f “ t h e case pr e s e nt s e xc e pt i o nalc i r c um s t anc e s . ” Davi s a r gue s t hatb e c aus e s o m e o f t he 9
s u mm a r y j u d g me n t ev i d e n c e c a me f r o m c o n f

i d e n t i a li n f

o r ma n t s , wh i c h we
assum e are ot h er i n m ates, h e need s c ou n selt o acces s t h e i den t i t i es and condu ct d i scov ery f

rom tho se inform a n ts . D a vis h a s n ot m oti on ed the distri ct cou rt t o ap poi n t coun sel , an d t h e di st ri ct court i s i n t h e best posi t i on t o consi der w h et h er
c i r c um st ance s of

t hi s c as e w ar r ant the appoi nt m ent of counse l

. W e w i l lnotat th i s ti m e g ra n t D a vis’m oti on , bu t he m a y re n ew th e m oti on in th e d i stri ct cou rt. W e A F F IR M t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof t h e c la im s agai n stO f f i cers Tuc ke r , D e z e e uw , an d G i l bert , bu t R E V E R S E an d R E M A N D t h e di sm i ssalof t he cl ai m s ag ai n stO f

f i cer M cD u f

f i e. W e D E N Yt h e m ot i on f or app oi n t m en t of
c o u n s e l.