Court Opinion

ID: 9379224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 00:00:32.008645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.490409
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40276        Document: 00516676763             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/14/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                     FILED
                                      No. 22-40276                              March 14, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                     Clerk

   Uvaldo Guzman,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Skinner C. Sturgis; Tommy L. West,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:18-CV-432
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Uvaldo Guzman, Texas prisoner # 01423388, filed a suit under 42
   U.S.C. § 1983 against Lieutenant Skinner C. Sturgis and Sergeant Tommy
   L. West, alleging that they demonstrated a deliberate indifference to his
   Eighth Amendment right to the minimal civilized measure of life’s
   necessities and retaliated against him for exercising his Sixth Amendment

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40276      Document: 00516676763             Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                       No. 22-40276

   right to counsel. Guzman alleged that he and his attorney’s investigator were
   having a meeting in a conference room to discuss a then-pending criminal
   charge against Guzman, but Guzman was moved to a shakedown cage so that
   he and the investigator could hear each other better. Guzman alleged that he
   was ultimately left in the shakedown cage for approximately 19 hours and was
   not provided access to food, water, or a bathroom. On appeal, Guzman
   challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
   defendants on the retaliation and deliberate indifference claims.
          We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
   standard used by the district court. Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636
   F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings,
   depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
   the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
   fact that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Cupit
   v. Walts, 90 F.3d 107, 109 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute about a
   material fact is genuine if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
   return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
   477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
          A qualified immunity defense alters the typical summary judgment
   burden of proof. Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010).
   Where, as here, the qualified immunity defense is pled, “the burden then
   shifts to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine
   fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated
   clearly established law.”     Id.     To overcome an assertion of qualified
   immunity, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant’s conduct violated
   a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established when the
   violation occurred. Williams v. City of Cleveland, 736 F.3d 684, 688 (5th Cir.
   2013) (per curiam).

                                            2
Case: 22-40276      Document: 00516676763           Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                     No. 22-40276

          To prevail on a retaliation claim, the prisoner “must establish (1) a
   specific constitutional right, (2) the defendant’s intent to retaliate against the
   prisoner for his or her exercise of that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and
   (4) causation.” McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998).
   Under this framework, the prisoner “must produce direct evidence of
   motivation or, the more probable scenario, allege a chronology of events from
   which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.” Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d
   322, 325 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). In other words, the showing must be “more than the prisoner’s
   personal belief that he is the victim of retaliation.” Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110
   F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
   To show causation, the prisoner must establish that, but for the retaliatory
   motive, the incident would not have occurred. McDonald, 132 F.3d at 231.
           In this case, the competent summary judgment evidence, even when
   construed in Guzman’s favor, indicated that: the defendants did not intend
   for Guzman to remain in the cage for hours; Sturgis directed his staff to
   remove Guzman from the cage and believed that the task had been
   completed; and Guzman’s extended stay in the cage resulted from the
   defendants’ attention to other issues in the building that required their
   presence. Because Guzman failed to satisfy the intent or causation element
   of his retaliation claim, the district court correctly found no constitutional
   violation. See McDonald, 132 F.3d at 231. Accordingly, the district court did
   not err in granting qualified immunity and summary judgment to the
   defendants on the retaliation claim. See Cleveland v. Bell, 938 F.3d 672, 675–
   76 (5th Cir. 2019).
          To establish an Eighth Amendment violation regarding conditions of
   confinement, the prisoner must show that his confinement resulted in a
   deprivation that was “objectively, sufficiently serious,” such that it resulted
   in the denial of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Farmer

                                           3
Case: 22-40276       Document: 00516676763         Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                    No. 22-40276

   v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (internal quotation marks and citations
   omitted). Additionally, the prisoner must show that the prison officials acted
   with “deliberate indifference” to the prisoner’s health or safety. Id. To
   establish deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show that the prison
   officials (1) were aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that
   a substantial risk of serious harm existed, (2) subjectively drew the inference
   that the risk existed, and (3) then disregarded that risk. Cleveland, 938 F.3d
   at 676.
             In this case, the competent summary judgment evidence indicated
   that the defendants periodically checked on Guzman while he was in the
   cage, that they did not believe he was at risk of being harmed, and that Sturgis
   told his staff to remove Guzman from the cage and believed that task had
   been accomplished. Given the lack of evidence of the defendants’ subjective
   awareness of a substantial risk of serious harm to Guzman, Guzman has not
   established that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference. See id.
   Although Guzman asserts that Sturgis made teasing comments during one of
   the times he checked on him while he was in the cage, the record indicates
   that Sturgis’s “light-hearted attitude[]” was “the result of subjective
   unawareness of the risk rather than knowledge of the risk and a deliberate
   choice not to take any precautions.” Aguirre v. City of San Antonio, 995 F.3d
   395, 421 (5th Cir. 2021). While the defendants may have been negligent, that
   negligence does not amount to deliberate indifference. See id. at 420.
   Because the district court properly determined there was no constitutional
   violation, the district court correctly granted qualified immunity and
   summary judgment to the defendants on the deliberate indifference claim.
   See Cleveland, 938 F.3d at 675-76.
             The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          4