W hen t he u nder l y i ng su i t w as f i l e, Li v i ngst on was t he Execut i v e Di r ect or of t he T exas Depar t m ent 1 ofC r i m i nal Just i ce, T r eon was t he T D C J- C I D R egi on I V D i r ect or , W ear was an Assi st ant D i r ect or of T D C JC ID R e g i o n IV , a n d M o ra l e s w a s a W a rd e n a t t h e M c C o n n e l l U n i t. 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0069 0-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
BRA D LIVI NGSTON, ROBERT TR EON, M A RT HA

W EA R, A ND PA UL M ORA LE S, A pp ellan ts,
v. A TIB A RA M ONE TA

YL OR, TD CJ #1 0826 01, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 56t h Dist rict C ou rt o f B ee Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan ts, Brad Li v ing sto n, R ober t Treon, Ma rt ha W ear , a n d P a u l Mo ra les (collectiv ely, “the Living s t o n d e fend ant s”), app eal f rom th e trial court’s den ial of their 1
m oti on for summar

y j udg ment. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 5 1

. 0 1 4( a) (5 )2

(V er non 200 8) ( prov idi ng for t he appe al of a di str ic t c our t’ s i nter loc utor

y order that “ deni es a moti on for summar

y j udg ment that is based on an as ser ti on of i mmunity

by an i ndi v idu al
w ho i s a n off ic er

or empl oy ee of the sta te or a po li ti cal su bdi v is ion of the s tate” ). O n appeal , the Liv ing sto n defendants as ser t t hat (1 ) they are enti tl ed to off ic ial i mmunity , and (2 ) they are ent it led to q ual ified i mmunity

. W e rev erse and render j udg ment for the Livi ngston d efend ant s. I. B A CKGRO UND Appel lee , At iba R amone Taylo r, i s a n i nmate atthe Mc Con nel l Uni t, a Tex as Depa rtme nt of

Cri min al Justice - Correctiona l Institut ions Div ision (“TDCJ-CID”) facility in Beev il le, Tex as. On Aug ust 8, 2005, cl aimi ng that his cel l lea ked w ater , par ti cul ar ly dur ing
ra iny w eather , Tay lor

fil ed a Step 1 g ri ev ance. Tay lor all eg ed that the lea ki ng so meti mes f lood ed the whole f loor and “floo ds ou t the entire run. ” “Th ese liv ing condition s are a risk at . . . pne um onia , pat heginical [sic] infection s (that bree d on stagnat ed w ate r just as W est Ni le i n f e ct ed mos q uit os) , atfung al, and other aq uati c, or

v iral li fe for ms, and a ri sk of electricut ion [ s ic ]

. ” H e wa s also deni ed “ mops [] and ot her cl eani ng mater ial s .
. . . ” Pursuantto an inv est ig ati on of thi s c omplai nt, a w or k o rd er for repai rs w as g enerated. O n September 28, 2005, Tay lor filed a Step 2 g ri ev ance all eg ing that no re pai rs had been mad e
. Ta y l o r s t a t e d t h a t h e h a d b e e n “ d e a l i n g ” w i t h t h i s i s s u e s i n c e t h e b e g i n n ing of 2004. Tay lor

w as infor med that the w or k order w as suffici ent to ad dress hi s c omplai nt an d tha t he sho uld ask for mo re towels if w ate r enters his cell. On N ov ember

14, 2005, proceed ing pro s e and in forma paupe ri s, Tay lor fil ed a
sec ti on 1983 ac ti on ag ain st the Tex as Dep artment of C ri minal Jus ti ce (“ TDC J” ) as ser ti ng that itv iol ated his Ei g hth Amendment ri g ht to be free from cr uel and unusu al puni shment

. See 42 U. S.C

. § 1983; U. S. C ON ST . am end . VIII. On July 21, 20 06, Ta y lor ame nde d hisD ur i ng t he M ar ch 16, 2007 t el ephon e conf er ence, t he t r i al cour t r ecogni z ed t hat an agencyi s not 2 a n a p p ro p ria te p a rty to a s e c ti o n 1 9 8 3 a c ti o n
. See R etz l af f v. Tex. D ep’

t of C r im
. Justi ce , 135 S. W

. 3d 7 31, 744 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] 200 3, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng De n s o n v . T

. D. C. J

. - I

. D. , 63 S. W

. 3d 454, 461 ( T ex. A pp
. –T y l er 19 99 , pe t

. de ni ed ))

. 3 pet ition to include t he Livi ngston def end ant s a s p arties to th e suit an d to ad d a ne w claim under the Tex a s Tort Cl aims Ac t. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 101.021 (Verno n 200 5). T aylor asserte d tha t the cond itions i n his cell cause d him rashe s and skin bumps , t h e d i s c h a rg e o f b l a c k mu c u s w h e n h e s n e e z e s a n d c o u g h s , a n d s h o rt n e ss of brea th. On March 16 , 200 7, th e trial court he ld a telep hon e con feren ce in w hich T aylor’ s Tex as To rt C l ai ms A c t c l ai m w as di s mi s s ed ag ai ns t al l par ti es . The s ec ti on 198 3 c l ai ms proceed ed ag ain st the L iv ing sto n defendants i n the ir off ic ial and ind iv idu al capac it ies but
w ere dism issed as to the T DCJ. 2 On May 15, 200 7, th e Livi ngston d efend ant s f iled a traditio nal m otion for sum ma ry jud g ment asser

ti ng sov ereig n, of

fici al, and q ual ified i mmunity

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a. On Octo ber 19, 200 7, th e trial court de nied the Livingston defend ant s’ motio n for sum ma ry jud g ment. This appeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e rev iew

the g ra nt or

deni al of a tradi ti onal su mmary j udg m e n t d e nov o. See Cr editwatch, Inc. v. Ja ck

son , 1 5 7 S. W .3 d 81 4 , 8 1 6 n. 7 (T e x. 20 0 5 ) (ci ti n g S c h n e ide r Na t ’l Car ri er s, Inc . v . Ba tes , 147 S.W .3d 2 64, 2 90 n. 137 (Tex . 200 4) ). To be ent it led to
sum ma ry judgme nt, th e mo v antmustdem onst rate th at no g enu ine issue s of mat erial fact
ex is t and thathe i s e nti tl ed to j udg ment as a mat ter of l aw
. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 16 6a(c). Once th e movant sa tisf ies his burde n, th e bu rden shif ts to the non -movant to produ ce
ev ide nce suffici ent t o rais e a facti ss ue. See W alker v. Harris , 9 2 4 S

. W

. 2 d 3 7 5 , 3 7 7 (T e x. 1996)

. In deter mini ng w hether a fact is sue ex is ts, ev ide nce fav orabl e to the n on- mov antT h e L iv in g s to n d e f e n d a n ts a p p e a r to u s e th e te r m s “ o f f i c i a l i m m u n ity” a n d “ s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity” 3 i n te rc h a n g e a b l y . H o w e v e r, th e m o re a c c u ra te te rm fo r th e a s s e rti o n i n th e i r firs t i s s u e i s “s o v e re i g n i m m u n i ty .” See T e x a s A & M U n iv . S y s . v . K o s e o g lu , 233 S

. W

. 3d 835, 843 (T ex. 2007) (“ [ A] n of f i ci al sued i n hi s i ndi v i dual capaci t y woul d asse r t off i ci al i m m uni t y as a de fen s e t o per sonal m onet ar y l i abi l i t y , whi ch i s wel l sui t ed f or res ol uti on i n a m oti on for s um m ary j ud gm en t

. B ut an offi c i al s ue d i n hi s offi c i al c ap ac i ty w o u l d a s s e rt s ove rei gn i m m un i t y . ”) (i nterna l ci t ati on s om i t t ed ).

Sect i on 1 983 pr ov i des: “ Ever y per son who, und er c ol or of an y st at ut e .
. . of any 4 St at e .
. . subj ect s
. . . any ci t i z en of t he U ni t ed St at es
. . . wi t hi n t he j ur i sdi ct i on t her eoft o t he d epr i v at i on o f any r i ght s, pr i v i l eges, or i m m uni t i es secur ed by t he C onst i t ut i on and l aws, shal l be l i abl e t o t he p ar t y i nj ur ed i n a n a c ti o n a t l a w . . . .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 (1 9 9 6 ); see Scot t v. Br i t t on , 16 S. W

. 3d 1 73, 180 ( T ex. A pp
. –H ou s t on [ 1s t D i s t

. ] 20 00 , no pe t

. ). 4 i s t a k e n a s tr ue. A m. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell , 951 S.W .2d 4 20, 4 25 ( Tex . 199 7) ( ci ti ng Nix o n v. M

r. Pr op. M gm t. Co. , 690 S.W .2d 5 46, 5 48- 49 ( Tex . 198 5) ). Al l doubts w il l be resolved in f avor of

t he non -movant, a nd all rea sona ble inferen ces w ill be indulged in his fav or
. Id. (ci ti n g Ni

xon , 690 S.W .2d a t 549 ).

III . S OV E RE I GN I M M UNI TY 3 The Li v ing sto n defendants as ser t t h a t, i n t h eir

off ic ial ca paci ty

as empl oy ees of TDC J, they

are entit led to sov er eig n i mmunity

. See Vel a v . R ocha , 52 S. W .3d 3 98, 4 03 (Te x . A p p
. – C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t

. ) ( “ A n i n d i v i d u a l s u e d i n h i s off ic ial capac ity . . . may in some cas es enj oy the protec ti ons of s ov ereig n immuni ty to t he extent thos e protec ti ons are av ail abl e to h is e m p loy er .” ); Hi dal go C ounty

v. Gonz

ale z , 128 S.W .3d 788 , 793 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 4, no pet. ) ( “If the governmen tal un it w ould be i mmune due t o s ov er eig n immunity , so is the g ov er nmental off ic ial su ed i n hi s o ff ic ial capac ity .” ). C ong re ss di d noti ntend sec ti on 1 9 8 3 of the Ci v il R ig hts Ac t t o abrog ate a sta te’ s sov ereig n immunity w it hout the s tate’ s c onsen t. W ill v. Mich. Dep’

t of Sta te Po lice , 4 4 9 1 U

. S

. 5 8 , 6 5
- 6 6 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t“ a S t a t e i s n o ta p e rs o n w it hin the mean i n g o f § 1983.” ); see 42 U .S.C . § 1983. Therefore, TDC J i s n ot a proper par ty to a s ect ion 1983 cl aim. Harrison v. Tex. Dept. of Crim inal Justice -Institu tiona l Di v. , 9 15 S. W .2d 8 82, 8 89 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st D ist.] 199 5, no pet .) (“ Neithe r a state no r its of f icials acting in theirW e r ecogni z e t hat t he t er m s “ off i ci al i m m uni t y ” and “ qual i f i ed i m m un i t y ” ar e oft en u sed 5 i n te rc h a n g e a b l y . S e e Tra v is v . C i ty o f M e s q u i te , 83 0 S

. W

. 2d 94 , 10 0 n. 2 ( T ex
. 19 92 ) ( C orn y n, J

. , co nc urri ng ). H owev er , t he d oct r i nes a r e sep ar at e de f enses: q ual i f i ed i m m uni t y appl i es when f eder al l aw cl ai m s ar e r ai sed w h i l e o ff i c i a l i m m u n i tya p p l i e s w h e n s ta te l a w c l a i m s a re ra i s e d

. See N ew m an v. Kock , 274 S. W

. 3d 697, 705 (T e x . A p p .– S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.); see a lso Hudson v. Vasquez , 941 S. W

. 2d 3 34, 338 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 199 7, no wr i t ) ( not i ng t hat “ t he f eder al t est i s nev er t hel ess di st i nct f r om t he st at e t est , and r esol ut i on o fst at e l aw i m m uni t y i ssues does not r esol v e f eder al i m m uni t y i ssues u ndersect i on 1 983. ” )

. W hen c o n s i d e rin g c l a i m s o f q u a l i fie d i m m u n i ty , T e x a s c o u rts a p p l y th e s a m e b u rd e n s h i fti n g a s th e F i fth C i rc u i t. See e. g. , N ew m an , 2 7 4 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 5 ; Leachm an v. D retke , 261 S. W

. 3d 297, 313 ( T ex. App. –For t W or t h 20 08, n o p e t.); Tex. D ep’

t of C r im inal Justi ce v. Thom as , 263 S. W

. 3d 2 12, 219 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] 200 7, p e t. d e n i e d ); C ar

rer a v. Yepez , 6 S

. W

. 3 d 6 5 4 , 6 6 1 ( Tex

. A p p
. – El P a s o 1 9 9 9 , p e t

. d i s m ’ d w . o
. j

. ) ( “ T he aff i r m at i v e de f ense ofqual i f i ed i m m uni t y , however , gi v es r i se t o shi f t i ng b ur dens. “ ) ( ci t i ng Sal as v. C ar pent er , 98 0 F

. 2d 29 9, 30 6 (5th C i r. 19 92 ) ( ex pl ai ni ng t he bu rde n s hi ft i ng proc es s i n q ua l i fi ed i m m un i t y ca s es ))

.
5 of f icial capa c it ie s a re ‘persons’ un der § 19 83. ”). W hen sued und er section 198 3 in his of f icial capacity, a suit again s ta s tate of f icial is a suit against th e stat e, an d is therefore bar re d bysov er eig n immunity . See T ex. D ep’ t of Pub. Saf

ety v. Petta , 44 S. W .3d 5 75, 5 81 (T e x. 20 0 1 )

. W e co n clu d e th a t t h e Li vings to n de fe n d a n ts are pro te ct e d by so vere ign immuni ty i n the ir off ic ial ca paci ti es and s ust ain thei r firs t i ss ue. See i d. at 58 2. IV. Q UA LI FI E D I M M UNI TY 5 Qual ified i mmunity

sh iel ds a g ov er nment offici al “p er forming di sc re ti onar

y functi ons from l iab il ity

for c iv il damag es under se cti on 1983 , prov ide d the off ic ial ’s condu ct does not
v iol ate c lea rl y

es tabl is hed c onst it uti onal or statut or y rig hts of w hic h a reason abl e person
w ould h ave b een a w are.” Scott v. Br itton , 16 S. W .3d 173 , 180 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dis t. ] 2 0 0 0 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Harlow v. Fitz gera ld , 457 U. S. 8 00, 8 18 ( 1982) ). Leg al ri g hts
ar e c lea r l y e s t a b l i s h e d w h e n t h e ” ’ c o n t o u rs o f t h e r i g h t [ a r e ] s u ffi c i e n t l y c l e a r that a
reaso nab le of

f icial w ould und erstan d tha t w hathe is doing v iolate s thatrig ht.’” T e x . D e p ’t of Cri m ina l Jus tice v. Thom as , 263 S.W .3d 2 12, 2 19 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 7, pet. deni ed) ( q uoti ng Ander son v. Cr

eig hton , 483 U.S. 635 , 640 (1987 )). W hen a g ov er nment offici al ple ads qualified i mmunity , t he s ummary j udg ment6

b u rd e n s hif

ts to the plaintif

f to prod uce e v iden ce w hich est ablishe s thatthe of f icial’s condu ct v iol ated the c lea rl y es tabl is hed l aw
. New

m an v. Ko ck , 2 7 4 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 7 , 7 0 5 (T e x. Ap p – Sa n An to n io 20 0 8 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Michal ik v. Her m ann , 422 F.3d 252 , 262 (5th Cir. 2005) ); see Pear

son v. Cal

lah an , 129 S.C t. 808, 815 ( 2009) ( noti ng thatq ual ified i mmunity is i mmunity

f ro m sui t, not merel y

a defense to liab il ity ). “O nce the defendant of fici al ple ads g ood f a it h and demonst ra tes thatthe chal len g ed ac ti ons occ ur re d i n the co ntext of discretion aryauth o ri ty, the burde n shif ts to the plaintif

f to rebu t this def ense .” Scot t v. God win , 147 S.W .3d 6 09, 6 16 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2004, n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Carrera v. Yepez , 6 S.W .3d 654, 661 (Tex

. App.–E l Paso 1999, pet. dis m’d w .o.j .) ; Hay nes v. City of Beaum ont , 35 S. W .3d 166 , 176 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 20 00, no pe t.)). To prov e an Ei g hth A mendment v iol ati on bas ed on the c ondi ti ons of confinement , the p lai nti ff

mustsh ow

thatthe depr iv ati on he all eg e s is objec ti v ely se ri ous and t hat t he g ov er nment off ic ial ac ted w it h del ibe ra te i ndi ff erence to hi s h eal th an d s afety

. Her nandez
v. Vel asque z , 522 F .3d 5 56, 5 60- 61 ( 5th C ir . 200 8) ; Br itton , 16 S .W .3 d at1 81

. To demonst ra te t hat t he depr iv ati on he all eg es is obj ect iv ely ser iou s, Tay lor must sh ow “ that the c ondi ti on [i s] so ser ious a s to ‘ depr iv e pr is oners o f the mi nimal ci v il iz ed meas ure of life ’s necessitie s,’ as w hen it d e n ie s t h e prisoner som e ba sic hum an n eed .’” W oods v. Edwar ds , 5 1 F.3 d 57 7 , 5 8 1 (5t h Cir. 19 9 5 ) (qu o ti n g Har ri s v. Angel

ina C ounty, 31 F. 3d 331, 334 ( 5th C ir . 199 4) ). To prov e del ibe ra te i ndi ff erence, the pl a intiff must s how thatthe off ic ial w as “a w ar e of facts from w hic h i t c oul d be infer re d tha t a subs tanti al ri sk of ser iou s harm ex ists, and mustdraw thatinferen ce.” Br

itton , 16 S.W .3 d a t 181. “ Del ibe ra te indif feren ce is an extreme ly high standa rd to me et.” Dom ino v. Tex

. De p ’ t o f Cr im ina l Justice , 239 F.3d 75 2, 75 6 (5th Cir. 200 1).7

Ass uming , ar

guendo, t h a tT a ylo r’ s h o u s in g c o n d it io n s we re o bje c t ive ly s e ri o u s , we
conc lud e tha t Tay lor

fail ed to prov e tha t t he Livin gst on defendants ac ted w it h del ibe ra te ind ifferenc e. See Br

itton , 16 S.W .3d a t 181

. As the S u p re me C our t has note d, “[ D] eli berate i ndi ff er ence desc ri bes a s tate of mind more bl amew orthy than neg li g ence. ” Far m er , 511 U .S. at 835. There must hav e been “‘ more than ordin ar y lac k of du e c are for the prisoner’s int e re s t s o r s a fety.’” Id. (quo ti n g W hitley v. Albe rs , 475 U .S. 312, 319 (1 986) ). The s ummary j udg ment ev ide nce present ed to the tr ial cour t demons trated that, not only w er e the Li v ing sto n defendants not n eg li g ent, they w ere pursui ng sol uti ons to t he prob lem s. T reon state d in his af

f idavit that 8-Building, am ong oth er buildin gs in the McConnell U n i t , h a d a n o u t s t a ndi n g M aj o r W o r kR e q u e s tt o re p l a c e i t s ro o f, w h i c h w a s p a rto f a p ro j e c t t o r e p l a c e 4 4 5 , 5 2 4 s q u a r e fe e t o f ro o f. L i v i n g s t o n a t t a c h e d t o h i s mo t i o n for
summar y j udg ment w or k o rd ers for roof re pai rs betw een March 2004 and Febru ar y 2005. Norris Jackson , an assista nt w arde n at th e McConne ll Unit, testif ied v ia af f idavit that the re
w as a Major W ork Order for repairing 8-Building’s roof w ith w ork projecte d to be gin i n Oct ober 2006 and fini shi ng i n Oc tober 2007. In respon se to Tay lor ’s Ste p 1 g ri ev ance, the
w arden not ed th at “ a w or k o rd er has been g enerated and ha s b e en defer re d to re g ion al hea dquarte r[s]. Once m ore m ate rial is received, repairs w ill be m ade .” U nsat isf ied by this result, T aylor f iled a Ste p 2 gri evance to w hich T reon resp o n ded , “Th e Ste p 1 respo nse has address ed y our

co mplai nt. Addi ti onal ly , n o ti fy st aff to re q uestextra tow els i f w ater ent ers y our cell.” One federal dis tr ict courthas address ed th is preci se is sue of leak ing ce ll s a t t he Mc Con nel l Uni t. In W

eber v. Ste vens , the Dis tr ic t Cour t for the Southe rn Dis tr ic t of Tex as noted,8

Th e me re fa c t t h a t d e fe n d a n t s w e r e a w a r e t h a t t h e ro o fs t h ro ug hout the pr is on facil ity needed to be repl aced is i nsuffici ent t o prov e tha t defendant s we re d e li b e ra t e ly in d if

fe re n t t o p la in t if

f ' s h e a lt h a n d s a fe t y. T o t h e co n t ra ry, the e v ide nce show s that a conc entrated effort w as bei ng made t o protec t t he heal th an d s afetyof pla int iff and other i nmates by

responding to ma inten ance w ork orders. See al so No. C .A. C- 04- 378, 2005 W L 20762 80, a t * 6 ( S.D . Tex . Au g . 26, 2005) ( findi ng also th at, o n similar facts, p lain t iff failed to estab lish thatsuch liv ing condition s w ere obj ect iv ely

se ri ous) . Simi lar ly , w e concl ude that Tay lor has f ail ed to satis fy his burden of p ro vin g t h a t L ivi n gs t o n a c t e d wit h d e li b e ra t e in d if fe re n c e t o h is h e a lt h a n d sa fe t y. T h e re fo re , we co n c lu d e t h a t t h e L ivi n gs t o n d e fe n d a n t s a re e n t it le d t o qu a li f ie d im m u n it y, and w e s ust ain thei r sec ond i ss ue. V. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing found thatthe Liv ing sto n defendants are ent it led to sov ereig n and q ual ified immuni ty , w e rev erse the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment and render j udg ment t hat, on hi s s ect ion 1983 c lai ms, Tay lor

tak e not hin g from t he Li v ing sto n defendants i n ei ther thei r off ic ial or ind iv idu al capac it ies

. See Petta , 44 S.W .3d a t 581

.

_________

_________

______ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 6t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.