The opinion
Case: 24-20061 Document: 63-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2024
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 24-20061
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 7, 2024
Lyle W. Cayce
John Allen Goodwin, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Devon Collins,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CV-680
______________________________
Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
John Allen Goodwin, Texas prisoner # 2265271, appeals the award of
summary judgment to the defendant on his Eighth Amendment claim of
failure to protect. Goodwin contends that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment because he raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to Goodwin’s
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-20061 Document: 63-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2024
No. 24-20061
safety when he housed Goodwin, a safekeeping inmate, in a cell with a general
population inmate.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
Ratliff v. Aransas Cty., Texas, 948 F.3d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 2020). To prevail
on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must show that “there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “However, a good-faith
assertion of qualified immunity alters the usual summary judgment burden of
proof, shifting it to the plaintiff to show that the defense is not available.”
Ratliff, 948 F.3d at 287 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To state a claim of failure to protect, a prisoner must show that (1) “he
is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm,”
and (2) that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to that risk. Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-34 (1994). To support his claim, Goodwin
points to his custody designation and his having informed the defendant of
his custody designation when the defendant housed Goodwin with a general
population inmate, in contravention of prison policy. Without more,
Goodwin fails to establish that the risk of harm was substantial. See Luna v.
Davis, 59 F.4th 713, 715, 717-18 (5th Cir. 2023).
Goodwin presents no other evidence from which Collins could have
inferred a substantial risk of serious harm arose from housing Goodwin with
the general population inmate. See Longoria v. Texas, 473 F.3d 586, 593-94
(5th Cir. 2006); Luna, 59 F.4th at 717. Accordingly, he fails to show that he
was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm
or that, if a substantial risk of harm existed, that the defendant was aware of
facts from which he could have inferred that the substantial risk of harm
existed. See Longoria, 473 F.3d at 592.
2
Case: 24-20061 Document: 63-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/07/2024
No. 24-20061
Thus, we AFFIRM the district court’s ruling granting summary
judgment.
3