Guzman v. Sturgis ( 2023 )

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