Cook v. Crow

Case: 22-40047 Document: 00516698711 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-40047 April 3, 2023
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Clifford C. Cook,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Michael B. Crow, Assistant Warden; Jeffrey R.
Woodard; Vivian Davis; Clemente Espinoza; Rochelle P.
Rogers,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:20-CV-85
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Appellant Clifford Cook is an inmate in the custody of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. He brought this pro se Section 1983 action
after he was assaulted by four members of the Crips gang. He alleges various
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-40047 Document: 00516698711 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
No. 22-40047
officials at the Mark W. Stiles Unit were deliberately indifferent to his safety
in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants and
dismissed Cook’s claims. On appeal, Cook contends Defendants knew he
was vulnerable to assault because he was in safekeeping status due to threats
from the Aryan Circle gang during an unrelated 2008 prison stint, and he
communicated his fears to Defendants multiple times leading up to the
assault challenged here. He also seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to
provide him safekeeping status and faults the district court for failing to
address his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).
The record contains no evidence that Defendants were “aware of
facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
serious harm” to Cook was posed by Crips members, or that Defendants
actually drew such an inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837,
114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994). Cook’s claim for injunctive relief was rendered
moot upon his transfer to a different unit. See, e.g., Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock
Cnty., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). And to the extent Cook ever
alleged an IIED claim, he abandoned it when he failed to address it in
response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See Keelan v.
Majesco Software, Inc., 407 F.3d 332, 339–40 (5th Cir. 2005).
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
Cook’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.
2