Opinion ID: 623834
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: White’s First Appeal to this Court

Text: On September 12, 2005, the magistrate judge issued an opinion and order dismissing with prejudice as frivolous White’s claims against Major Fox and Captain Taylor, as well as all claims arising at the Michael Unit. On September 19, 2005, White appealed to this court for the first time. On October 6, 2008, this court affirmed in part and reversed in part. This court stated that: On remand, the district court should decide White’s §1983 claim to the extent that White seeks damages for the disciplinary board’s failure to provide him with a written statement of the evidence relied on during the 1 “Snitch jacket” is a phrase connoting a reputation for being an informant. It is not an actual jacket (as in a garment). Jacket comes from the “file jackets” that were used by the authorities prior to computerization of records. The phrase finds its roots in the fear of the unwritten code that exhorts prisoners not to inform on a fellow prisoner. 4 Case: 10-40843 Document: 00511770597 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/28/2012 disciplinary proceeding. The court should also consider the “snitch” claim and the alleged harm that resulted from this designation. We caution, however, that the damages cannot encompass the “injury” of being deprived of good-time credits, and must stem solely from “the deprivation of civil rights.” White v. Fox, 294 F. App’x 955, 963 (5th Cir. 2008). D. Limited Remand to the Magistrate Judge When this case returned to the magistrate judge, the litigants filed a number of motions, including motions to recuse and retract consent to the magistrate judge, motion for leave to file their original answer and jury demand, three motions for default judgment, two motions to strike, motion for preliminary injunction, motion to produce documents, etc. Finally, White filed two motions for summary judgment on July 29, 2009 and on October 26, 2009. Likewise, Major Fox and Captain Taylor each cross-moved for summary judgment on January 15, 2010. Major Fox argued that he neither designated nor used White as an informant, and that White’s allegations regarding this issue failed to establish deliberate indifference. Captain Taylor argued that he was entitled to summary judgment because White did receive a statement of the evidence that was used against him at the disciplinary hearing, and, although additional information was ultimately added to the form after the hearing, the added information was not new. On March 8, 2010, the magistrate judge granted Captain Taylor’s and Major Fox’s motions for summary judgment and, again, dismissed White’s complaint with prejudice. White v. Fox, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20433, -28 (E.D. Tex. March 8, 2010). White, again, appealed to us. We, again, affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.