Alexander v. Taft

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED

No. 24-10663 December 23, 2025

____________ Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Ronnie Alexander,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Philip R. Taft Psy D and Associates, P.L.L.C.; Henderson

County Texas; Nathaniel Patterson; Taylor Caldwell;

Morgan Fain; Noah Kreie; William Trussel; Dora

Martinez; Melissa Harmon; Philip Taft,

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:22-CV-395

______________________________

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN

BANC

Before Dennis, Oldham, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Dana M. Douglas, Circuit Judge:

The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. No member of the

panel nor judge in regular active service having requested that the court be

polled on rehearing en banc, the petition for rehearing en banc is also

DENIED. Fed. R. App. P. 35; 5th Cir. R. 40. Judge Dennis

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

having filed a revised dissent, the prior opinions, Alexander v. Taft, 143 F.4th

569 (5th Cir. 2025), are WITHDRAWN, and the following opinions are

SUBSTITUTED.

Ronnie Alexander was arrested and detained in Henderson County

Jail while he awaited trial. Hoping to transfer out of the group holding cell,

he falsely informed Jail officials that he was suicidal. The Jail subsequently

transferred him to its suicide-prevention cell, known as the “violent cell.”

The violent cell has no toilet, running water, or bedding, and the lights

run at all hours. Alexander was housed there for five days, after which he was

released from the Jail. He subsequently filed this lawsuit, bringing federal-

and state-law claims challenging the conditions of his confinement in the

violent cell and the adequacy of the Jail’s mental health services. The district

court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. We AFFIRM.

I

A

On March 8, 2021, Ronnie Alexander was booked at the Jail. 1 The

next day, he underwent a medical intake screening, during which he reported

that he was not suicidal. He showed no signs of intoxication or withdrawal;

nevertheless, he was placed on alcohol withdrawal protocol under which he

received “a suite of prescriptions.” At all relevant times, Southern Health

Partners provided non-mental health care at the Jail, while Philip R. Taft,

Psy.D & Associates, P.L.L.C., provided mental health care. One of Taft’s

employees, Jessica Phlips, was assigned to visit inmates.

Shortly after Alexander’s booking, Phlips visited him and observed no

mental health issues, but noted that he disclosed suffering from post-

_____________________

1

The record does not identify the crime for which he was booked.

2

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and depression. After a follow-up

meeting, she identified no concerns regarding his mental status. Soon

thereafter, the Jail designated Alexander a maximum-security detainee and

placed him in group detention “with some of the most violent and dangerous

men being held at the Jail.” Alexander alleges that the other inmates

consistently threatened him, causing him to fear for his safety and his blood

pressure to rise.

Worried by the circumstances, Alexander requested transfer to

another cell several times. The guards refused. Eventually, he falsely

informed a correctional officer that he was suicidal, “believing that would

force the [J]ail to move him out of the group detention cell for medical or

mental health evaluation.” He was correct. On March 10, officers

transferred him to the violent cell. Along the way, they harassed Alexander,

calling him a “b****” and telling him that he “really f***** up now, b****.”

Alexander paints a grim picture of the violent cell. It has “no bed,

sink, toilet, shower, or running water of any kind.” The only place for an

inmate to urinate or defecate is through a small, grated drain in the middle of

the floor. He received no toilet paper, so he used a paper cup to force fecal

matter through the drain. And he had no access to running water or utensils,

forcing him to eat “with hands that were perpetually contaminated with fecal

bacteria.” During his five days in the violent cell, “he was never once allowed

to leave his cell to use a proper toilet, shower, or wash his hands.” 2

_____________________

2

While Alexander alleges that “[t]he floor had not been cleaned and was covered

in dried urine and fecal matter,” he incorporated a color image of his cell, which is an off-

white color. From review of this image, the cell appears clean—and certainly devoid of

fecal matter—discounting any allegation that the cell was covered in waste. We need not

accept allegations clearly disproven by photographic evidence incorporated in the

complaint. See Kokesh v. Curlee, 14 F.4th 382, 385 n.2 (5th Cir. 2021).

3

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

He also had no clothing or sheets, and was provided only a “suicide

blanket” to cover himself. In lieu of a bed, the violent cell has a concrete slab

built into the wall. The lights ran at all hours, “inhibit[ing]” his ability to

sleep. He was provided three eight-ounce cups of water per day—one with

each meal. And during his time in the violent cell, he received no exercise or

recreation time.

To mitigate these deficiencies, Alexander requested water, toilet

paper, and an opportunity to shower or wash his hands. The officers almost

uniformly rejected the requests, taking “no affirmative steps whatsoever,

beyond cursory visual checks, to ensure that [his] physical and mental health

were not suffering from the conditions he was subjected to in the violent

cell.” 3 Instead, the guards often taunted Alexander. One “loudly discussed

taking [him] out to a field and unleashing [a police] dog on him.” Another

threatened to kill him with a “barbed wire guillotine.” Yet another stated:

“Ronnie Alexander, you are not leaving this facility alive.”

On March 12, two days after Alexander’s transfer to the violent cell,

Phlips visited. Prior to their meeting, she did not review his medical file or

other records and did not have access to the officers’ suicide screener. She

quickly determined that Alexander was “‘too confused’ to answer her initial

questions” and departed, doing “nothing to alleviate the conditions that

were causing [his] psychological deterioration” and “fail[ing] to report her

observations to any medical or mental health professionals.” She did not

visit again.

Alexander remained in the violent cell until March 15, at which time

he was released to the custody of Dallas County.

_____________________

3

Over the course of his five days in the violent cell, Alexander received “only about

three small beverages in total” beyond those he received with his meals.

4

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

B

On February 17, 2022, almost one year after his release, Alexander

filed this lawsuit against various individuals and entities, alleging violations

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alongside various state-law claims. He amended his

complaint several times, ultimately filing his Third Amended Complaint, in

which he alleged claims against Southern Health Partners, Inc.; Philip Taft

in his individual capacity and Philip R. Taft, Psy.D & Associates P.L.L.C.

(“the Taft defendants”); Henderson County, Texas; and Henderson

County Correctional Officers Nathaniel Patterson, Taylor Caldwell, Morgan

Fain, Noah Kreie, William Trussell, Dora Martinez, and Melissa Harmon

(“the officers”).

The defendants individually filed motions to dismiss pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court granted the

defendants’ motions over Alexander’s opposition, finding that he failed to

state a claim under § 1983 against the Taft defendants, Henderson County,

and the officers. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Alexander’s remaining state-law claims against the Taft defendants and

Southern Health Partners and dismissed them without prejudice. Alexander

timely appealed the dismissal of his federal claims.

II

“We review a district court’s dismissal of claims under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo.” Clyce v. Butler, 876 F.3d 145, 148 (5th

Cir. 2017). We “interpret[] the complaint in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff,” United States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 735 F.3d 202,

204 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health,

Inc., 625 F.3d 262, 266 (5th Cir. 2010)), accepting all well-pleaded facts as

true, see Cicalese v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch, 924 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir.

2019). However, those facts must state “a claim to relief that is plausible on

5

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

While complaints do “not need detailed factual allegations,”

speculative or conclusory statements of fact are insufficient. Cicalese, 924

F.3d at 765 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. And

we “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual

allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

III

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides pretrial

detainees protections extending beyond those granted to sentenced

defendants. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). While “[a]

sentenced inmate . . . may be punished” within the strictures of the Eighth

Amendment, “[d]ue process requires that a pretrial detainee not be

punished.” Id.; see also Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 400–01 (2015)

(“[M]ost importantly, pretrial detainees (unlike convicted prisoners) cannot

be punished at all, much less ‘maliciously and sadistically.’” (citations

omitted)); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989) (protecting

pretrial detainees “from the use of excessive force that amounts to

punishment”). Such protection is fundamental to our criminal justice

system. “A person lawfully committed to pretrial detention has not been

adjudged guilty of any crime.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 536. Since the detainee has

“had only a ‘judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to

[the] extended restraint of [his] liberty following arrest,’” the Government

may only use such conditions necessary “to ensure his presence at trial.” Id.

(alterations in original) (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 114 (1975)).

6

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

Due process compels us to ask whether the “restrictions and

conditions of the detention facility . . . amount to punishment, or otherwise

violate the Constitution.” Id. at 536–37. “Not every disability imposed

during pretrial detention amounts to ‘punishment’ in the constitutional

sense . . . .” Id. at 537. Therefore, traditional “confinement in a facility

which . . . results in restricting the movement of a detainee” is permissible.

Id. Often, these restrictions arise from the Government’s “legitimate

interests that stem from its need to manage the facility in which the individual

is detained.” Id. at 540. This means that some “administrative measures

that go beyond those that are, strictly speaking, necessary to ensure that the

detainee shows up at trial” may be warranted. Id. Such is the case “even if

they are discomforting and are restrictions that the detainee would not have

experienced had he been released while awaiting trial.” Id.

Pretrial detainees may bring claims of such violations “either by

demonstrating an unconstitutional condition of confinement or by

demonstrating an unconstitutional episodic act or omission.” Cadena v. El

Paso County, 946 F.3d 717, 727 (5th Cir. 2020). “For a conditions of

confinement claim, ‘the proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount

to punishment of the detainee.’” Id. (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 535). These

conditions “may take the form of ‘a rule,’ a ‘restriction,’ ‘an identifiable

intended condition or practice,’ or ‘acts or omissions’ by a jail official that

are ‘sufficiently extended or pervasive.’” Id. (quoting Est. of Henson v.

Wichita County, 795 F.3d 456, 468 (5th Cir. 2015)). 4

_____________________

4

Alexander alleges that the violent cell’s “conditions had no justifiable purpose

and were therefore unlawful punishment,” and that he “was harmed by intentional acts or

omissions, such as the denial of water and toilet paper.” The district court acknowledged

this duality, but found that Alexander’s “harms . . . stem from the barren conditions within

the violent cell” and were “best classified as harms relating from his conditions of

confinement.” It therefore “proceed[ed] analyzing his Section 1983 claims under the Fifth

7

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

To determine whether conditions are constitutionally permissible, we

ask whether the restrictions and practices “are rationally related to a

legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose and whether they appear

excessive in relation to that purpose.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 561. If there is a

related governmental objective, the conditions, “without more, [do not]

amount to ‘punishment.’ Conversely, if a restriction or condition is not

reasonably related to a legitimate purpose—if it is arbitrary or purposeless—

a court may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment

that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees.” Id.

at 539 (footnote omitted). Therefore, Alexander must demonstrate, inter

alia, that the restrictions are not reasonably related to a legitimate

governmental objective. See Cadena, 946 F.3d at 727 (quoting Duvall v.

Dallas County, 631 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2011)). Because Alexander cannot

make this showing, as described below, we affirm.

IV

On appeal, Alexander raises the following issues: whether (1) his

confinement was an unlawful punishment of a pretrial detainee; (2) the Taft

defendants and the County completely deprived him of qualified mental

health care, creating an unlawful condition of confinement; (3) Taft is liable

in his individual capacity for Alexander’s injuries; and (4) he plausibly alleged

that the County maintained a custom or practice of punishing inmates

through the violent cell. Because we conclude that the violent cell’s

conditions are reasonably related to a legitimate government interest and are

thus not punitive, we do not reach the fourth issue.

_____________________

Circuit’s conditions-of-confinement framework” in light of the clarity provided by the

most recent amended complaint. On appeal, Alexander discusses, but does not challenge,

this classification. We agree that his claims challenge the conditions of his confinement,

and consider them as such.

8

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

A

We begin with Alexander’s claims that Henderson County and the

officers unconstitutionally punished him through the conditions of his

confinement. Alexander complains that he was subjected to a “barbaric

combination of conditions,” which he asserts were unjustifiable and

therefore punitive. We accept his well-pleaded allegations that he was

deprived of a toilet, toilet paper, running water, recreation, bedding, clothing,

additional drinking water, or particularly sanitary or clean conditions, and

that he was subjected to a 24/7-lights-on policy. We also accept as fact that

officers threatened him as alleged.

“Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part of

detention facility officials,” we ask whether the “particular condition or

restriction . . . is reasonably related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental

objective.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 538–39. We first consider whether there was an

expressed intent to punish, and then ask whether the conditions were

reasonably related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental objective.

1

Alexander argues that the district court failed to credit his well-

pleaded allegations that prison officials were aware that he was not actually

suicidal. As Alexander frames it, he informed the guards that he was suicidal

to escape group housing. But when they moved him to solitary confinement,

they did so not to protect him, but to punish him. 5

_____________________

5

The district court did not consider these allegations. The dissent says that this

“should end the analysis.” Post, at 27. But a district court need only consider well-pleaded

allegations of fact, not speculation about others’ states of mind. Cicalese, 924 F.3d at 765

(noting that we need not accept speculative allegations); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (requiring

factual content that leads to “reasonable inferences”). Nor does the failure to consider a

handful of allegations always warrant reversal. Such is especially so here, considering that

9

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

As an initial matter, Alexander was not transferred until he informed

correctional officers that he was suicidal. That alone implies that the officers

took his statement at face value, even if they did not subjectively believe him.

But Alexander points to the vulgar comments the officers made during his

transfer, including that he “really f***** up now, b****.” This, he claims,

gives rise to the inference that “the guards did not care about [his] fear of his

cellmates or spiking blood pressure and wanted to punish him for

complaining.” He asserts that “[i]t can be further inferred that they also

knew [he] could expect to suffer while he was in the violent cell.”

Inappropriate as the officials’ statements may be, they do not evince punitive

intent, even if they followed several denied requests for relocation. The same

is true of any threats directed at Alexander while he was in the violent cell. 6

Alexander alleges no facts of the officers’ explicit intent to punish him, or

that they outwardly disbelieved him, or that other suicidal inmates received

different treatment. 7

_____________________

Alexander’s framing requires an inferential leap—from the officers’ alleged subjective

disbelief to an expressed intent to punish—that we need not accept. Nevertheless, as

described below, the allegation does not save his complaint. See also Gilbert v. Donahoe, 751

F.3d 303, 311 (5th Cir. 2014) (explaining that we may affirm on any ground supported by

the record).

6

The threats included unleashing a police dog on Alexander and threatening to kill

him with a barbed wire guillotine. Officers also stated that Alexander would not “leav[e]

this facility alive.” We do not endorse such comments. But “[m]ere allegations of verbal

abuse do not present actionable claims under § 1983. ‘As a rule, “mere threatening

language and gestures of a custodial officer do not, even if true, amount to a constitutional

violation.”’” Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993) (alteration omitted)

(quoting McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1983)). Therefore, to the extent

that Alexander suggests that these comments created a condition of confinement that

violated the Constitution, we disagree.

7

The dissent argues that we “invert[] Rule 12(b)(6)” by “assum[ing] facts in favor

of the moving party.” Post, at 26 n.1. Not so. The facts alleged, taken as true, do not give

rise to the reasonable inference that the officers intended to punish Alexander. Beyond

these insufficient factual allegations, he may claim that the officers desired to punish him,

10

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

Moreover, it matters not whether the officers believed he was suicidal.

County jails have a constitutional duty to ensure the safety of potentially

suicidal detainees. Rhyne v. Henderson County, 973 F.2d 386, 391 (5th Cir.

1992) (“The failure to provide pre-trial detainees with adequate protection

from their known suicidal impulses is actionable under § 1983 as a violation

of the detainee’s constitutional rights.”). Allowing this allegation to

bootstrap Alexander’s complaint past a motion to dismiss would create a

minefield we decline to enter. Consider the dangers of requiring officers to

second-guess every inmate’s report of suicidal ideation. If they believe and

transfer a dishonest detainee, as here, they would be liable for conditions that

are designed to protect suicidal inmates. But if they disbelieve and do not

transfer an honest detainee, they would also be liable, and the detainee would

be in serious danger of self-harm. This standard is unworkable and would

result in the denial of constitutional protections, and we therefore reject it.

2

We next consider whether the conditions of the violent cell are

reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. As discussed above,

pretrial detainees have a constitutional right to protection from self-harm.

Rhyne, 973 F.2d at 391. As barren as the violent cell was, each condition was

reasonably related to the legitimate government interest of protecting

suicidal inmates from self-harm.

_____________________

but any allegation to that effect is speculation that we need not accept. See Cicalese, 924

F.3d at 765. And, as described later, we do not depend on whether officers believe an

individual’s report of suicidal ideation.

Nor do we “fault[] Alexander for not meeting a legal test that finds no support in

precedent” through our discussion of similarly situated detainees. Post, at 28. Where there

are insufficient factual allegations demonstrating punitive intent, a detainee could

presumably make a showing of punitive intent through disparate treatment of similarly

situated individuals. Alexander failed to do so.

11

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

Alexander alleges that the cell did not have a toilet, a shower, or

running water. But each of these poses a drowning risk. See, e.g., Elliott v.

Cheshire County, 940 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir. 1991) (noting that the prisoner stated

that “he wanted to drown himself in the toilet”); Belcher v. City of Foley, 30

F.3d 1390, 1393 (11th Cir. 1994) (“As the officers attempted to move Mr.

Belcher, he broke away and stuck his head into the toilet in an attempt to

drown himself.”); Cervantez v. Frith, No. 22-150, 2025 WL 1287918, at *1

(N.D. Tex. May 2, 2025) (inmate attempted to drown himself in the toilet

three separate times); Crocco v. Winkler, 659 F. Supp. 3d 204, 207 (D.N.H.

2023) (“Crocco attempted to drown himself in the cell’s sink . . . .”). He

claims that he was stripped and provided no bedding. But clothes and sheets

carry risks of self-asphyxiation, especially when combined with showers,

sinks, or toilets. See, e.g., McMahon v. Beard, 583 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1978)

(“Removal of all cloth which might offer a means for suicide would seem

prudent.”); Hare v. City of Corinth, 36 F.3d 412, 414 (5th Cir. 1994) (inmate

hanged herself “from the bars of her cell” using “strips of the blanket”);

Lewis v. Stephens, 710 F. App’x 703, 703 (7th Cir. 2018) (“He stood on the

sink in his cell with a bedsheet tied around his neck, threatening to hang

himself.”); Romero v. Donley County, 87 F.3d 1311, at *1 (5th Cir. 1996)

(unpublished) (inmate hanged himself from bar above the toilet); Rangel v.

Wellpath, LLC, No. 23-128, 2024 WL 1160913, at *1 n.3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 18,

2024) (inmate “tore the blanket into strips, tied them to the shower head,

and hung himself”). He states that his requests for toilet paper were denied.

But, sadly, even toilet paper could pose a choking hazard. See Nagle v.

Gusman, 61 F. Supp. 3d 609, 624 (E.D. La. 2014) (deposition testimony that

an inmate “swallowed a roll of toilet paper and killed himself”); Elliott, 940

F.2d at 9 (inmate that had previously threatened suicide asked another “what

12

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

would happen if he . . . swallowed paper towels”). 8 Moreover, a twenty-

four-hour-lights-on policy permits officers to monitor the inmate’s activity

around the clock to prevent them from self-harming. Cf. Anderson v. Dallas

County, 286 F. App’x 850, 852 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008) (noting that “[o]nce an

inmate is placed on Suicide Prevention Status, jailers must routinely monitor

and observe the inmate”). These conditions, “barbaric” as they may be,

_____________________

8

We note that Alexander complains of other rejected requests and conditions,

including requests for additional drinking water and to shower or wash his hands, and a lack

of recreational time. All inmates have “a right to adequate food.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457

U.S. 307, 315 (1982). Inherent in such a right is access to water. But we hesitate to take

Alexander’s suggestion that he ought to have received the “ideal” amount of drinking

water for an adult male, which he totals to be 124 ounces. Even if Alexander’s drinking

water values were lower than what a typical person may aim for, we cannot say that he was

provided “inadequate” water to the point of constitutional deprivation. This

determination, of course, is context-dependent. But we decline to create an express

baseline for daily water consumption for prisoners in suicide prevention cells.

As for the inability to shower and the loss of recreation time, such are reasonably

related to the legitimate interest in protecting him from self-harm. Officials would have

been required to move him out of the protective cell, provide him access to running water

and a shower head—among the dangers from which he was isolated—and afford

recreational time in open space, possibly with other inmates. These acts could pose a

danger to an individual suffering suicidal ideation, and are not “arbitrary or purposeless.”

Bell, 441 U.S. at 539. We expressly limit this holding to Alexander’s circumstances. We

do not extend this to instances in which an individual is in such a cell for other periods of

time or subjected to other conditions.

Finally, while we need not credit Alexander’s allegation that waste covered the

floor, see supra n.2, this alleged condition is a far cry from the horrifying facts presented in

Taylor v. Riojas, which amounted to an Eighth Amendment violation. See 592 U.S. 7, 8–9

(2020) (inmate was confined in two cells, one of which “was covered, nearly floor to

ceiling, in massive amounts of feces” and the second of which was “frigidly cold” and

“equipped with only a clogged drain in the floor to dispose of bodily wastes”). The

photograph in Alexander’s complaint discounts any allegation that the violent cell was in

nearly the state of the cell in Taylor, or amounted to a punitive condition under the

circumstances.

13

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 14 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

relate to the legitimate government interest of protecting inmates—an

interest that is constitutionally imposed upon the State. 9

To be sure, these conditions are not narrowly tailored. They are

overinclusive, painting with a broad brush to protect those who pose the

greatest danger to themselves. But Bell looks only for a reasonable

relationship, not narrow tailoring. So, even if these conditions are overly

protective of Alexander, they are sufficiently related to the Jail’s legitimate

interest in protecting suicidal inmates and thus pass constitutional muster. 10

_____________________

9

The district court found that the violent cell was “reasonably tailored to the

state’s interest in preventing suicides.” But it then relied on out-of-circuit caselaw to

alternatively hold that “the violent cell’s conditions did not deprive Alexander of life’s

minimal necessities.” We disagree.

We have previously held that similar conditions violate the Eighth Amendment

where there is punitive intent. See, e.g., McCray v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332, 1336 (5th Cir.

1975) (finding an Eighth Amendment violation where “[a]s many as seven” prisoners were

placed in a single cell in punitive isolation measuring six feet by eight feet, which lacked

“bunks, toilets, sinks[,] or other facilities,” and had only a “hole in the cell floor” as a toilet

that was flushed four times each day and often backed up); Alexander v. Tippah County, 351

F.3d 626, 628–31 (5th Cir. 2003) (referring to conditions as “deplorable” where inmates

punished for fighting were transferred to a similar cell, sewage littered the cell, it was

freezing, and inmates were unable to wash their hands before eating). Alexander’s housing

was affirmatively not punitive—it was protective.

Nor do we adopt the district court’s suggestion that, because Alexander lived

through his confinement at Henderson County Jail, the conditions are per se reasonably

related to the Jail’s interest in protecting suicidal inmates. The fact that some conditions

protect a detainee does not make all conditions reasonably related to the Government’s

interest in the detainee’s protection. Nevertheless, here, all conditions bore a reasonable

relationship to a legitimate government interest, and Alexander’s claims therefore fail. It

is solely on that basis that we affirm the district court’s judgment.

10

In his complaint and the factual background of the opening brief, Alexander notes

that “inmates identified with a potential for self-harm would sometimes be moved into the

much less restrictive ‘separation cells’ if the [J]ail decided it needed the violent cell for

someone who was genuinely violent.” Those cells have a toilet, sink, shower, table, and

bed. This, he claims, shows that the Jail did not believe the violent cell’s restrictions were

necessary.

14

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 15 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

Because the conditions were sufficiently related to a legitimate

governmental interest, Alexander was not punished in violation of the Due

Process Clause. 11 We therefore do not consider whether the officers are

entitled to qualified immunity.

B

Alexander’s remaining claims focus on medical care. He argues that

“the county was well aware that no qualified mental health care was being

provided at the [J]ail” and that its policies and contract with the Taft

defendants resulted in a “total, intentional deprivation of qualified mental

health care.” Specifically, he alleges that Phlips “did not bother to gather or

confirm any information on [him], such as why he was in the violent cell, how

long he had been in there, whether he was taking any medication, or anything

else.” Instead, she “quickly aborted her visit when she decided that

Alexander was ‘too confused’ to answer her initial questions.” He also

alleges that she took no action to help him; lacks medical or mental health

licensing; has admitted she is not a clinician; is unqualified to make a clinical

_____________________

Any argument centering on these alternative cells is forfeited for failure to brief the

issue before this court. See United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 334 (5th Cir. 2012) (en

banc). Regardless, as we note above, there is no requirement that the violent cell be tailored

to the individual. Where multiple individuals’ circumstances warrant placement in the

violent cell, spillover into the “separation cells” is required. But where the violent cell is

available, Alexander cannot claim that he should have been placed in a separation cell

instead. The violent cell is the safest place for the Jail to place a suicidal inmate, and the

conditions are reasonably related to its interest in protection against suicide. We decline to

suggest that officers should weigh the sincerity of such reports to determine whether a

detainee should be housed in a more relaxed cell, given their potential for self-harm.

11

We do not hold today that the violent cell’s conditions are permissible in all

circumstances. For instance, we express no view of the various other individuals’ stories

that Alexander raises in both his complaint and opening brief. We hold only that, as it

relates to Alexander, accepting his well-pleaded allegations as true, the Jail did not violate

his constitutional rights.

15

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 16 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

assessment; and must report her findings to someone qualified to make such

an assessment. But, while Alexander believes that “[a] qualified mental

health professional would have been alarmed at [his] state and taken steps to

address it,” Phlips “did not notify Taft or any other medical or mental health

professional about Alexander’s obvious distress.”

Alexander then turns to Taft. He alleges that Taft assigned “an

unlicensed person not legally authorized to provide psychological services”

to handle his contractual responsibilities without providing written policies

or procedures. Because the Jail was aware “from simple observation that

[Phlips] was unsupervised and the only person allegedly providing mental

health care at the [J]ail,” and it knew that she had no license, Alexander

asserts that “it was the [J]ail’s express policy to deny its entire inmate

population access to mental health care of any kind.”

We consider first his claims against the County, and then turn to the

Taft defendants. 12

1

_____________________

12

The dissent states that the district court dismissed this claim sub silentio and we

should therefore vacate and remand. Post, at 30. But the district court explained that,

although Alexander challenged his medical treatment, administrative segregation and his

confinement to a suicide-prevention cell did not amount to a constitutional violation. True

enough, this analysis did not fully consider one of Alexander’s chief complaints—that he

did not receive sufficient mental health care—but we may consider this issue nonetheless.

“Under our precedent, we may ‘affirm on any ground supported by the record, including

one not reached by the district court.’ This is so even if neither the appellant nor the

district court addressed the ground, so long as the argument was raised below.” Gilbert v.

Donahoe, 751 F.3d 303, 311 (5th Cir. 2014) (footnotes omitted) (quoting Ballew v. Cont’l

Airlines, Inc., 668 F.3d 777, 781 (5th Cir. 2012)). The dissent provides that this principle

“applies only when the district court has actually considered the claim.” Post, at 30. In

our view, the district court did consider Alexander’s § 1983 claim against the Taft

defendants, even if it failed to individually consider every factual basis supporting that

claim.

16

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 17 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

The State must “assume some responsibility for [a pretrial

detainee’s] safety and general well-being.” DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty.

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989). These responsibilities include

“food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety.” Id. Medical

care includes “protection from violence or suicide.” Hare v. City of Corinth,

74 F.3d 633, 643 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court did not expressly consider

Alexander’s argument that the Jail failed to provide sufficient mental health

care, instead dismissing the § 1983 claims against the Taft defendants

because the violent cell’s conditions did not violate his constitutional rights.

Nevertheless, seeing no cognizable claim under § 1983, we affirm. See

Gilbert, 751 F.3d at 311.

First, Alexander argues that the Jail allowed Phlips, whom he alleges

is unlicensed, to provide all mental health care at the Jail. The Texas

Commission on Jail Standards requires that each facility have a plan that

“provide[s] procedures that shall give inmates the ability to access a mental

health professional at the jail or through a telemental health service.” 37

Tex. Admin. Code § 273.2(13). “If a mental health professional is not

present at the county jail at the time or available by telemental health services,

then [the plan must] require the jail to provide the inmate access to, at a

minimum, a qualified mental health professional (as defined by [26 Tex.

Admin. Code § 301.303(48)]) within a reasonable time.” Id. Under 26

Tex. Admin. Code § 301.303(48), a qualified mental health professional

is one with competency in the work to be performed and (1) has a bachelor’s

degree from an accredited university with a minimum number of hours

dedicated to a major in one of various fields; (2) is a registered nurse; or

(3) completes an alternative credentialing process.

The complaint repeatedly calls Phlips unqualified, at some point

asserting that she is “not legally authorized to make suicide or mental health

care assessments.” But this legal conclusion, without more, cannot survive

17

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 18 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

a motion to dismiss. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Alexander does not allege

that Phlips falls short of the three categories in § 301.303(48). 13 He therefore

cannot rely on her purported lack of qualifications.

But we cannot assume that there is no constitutional violation just

because there is no properly alleged statutory violation under 37 Tex.

Admin. Code § 273.2(13). In other words, by maintaining a formal policy,

the County may well satisfy its statutory requirements, but it still must

provide the constitutional minimum of care. Cf. Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d

541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994) (“A state’s failure to follow its own procedural

regulations does not constitute a violation of due process, however, if

‘constitutional minima [have] nevertheless . . . been met.’” (alterations in

original) (quoting Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1251 (5th Cir. 1989))).

The County provided the constitutional minimum for mental health

assistance: “protection from violence or suicide.” Hare, 74 F.3d at 643. In

addition to being housed in a solitary confinement unit in which it was

virtually impossible to self-harm, Alexander spoke with the employed mental

health individual during his five-day confinement. It matters not that Phlips

was not licensed to the extent that Alexander desired. Nor is it of any

moment that he disagreed with both her determination that he was too

confused to continue to interview and her decision not to recommend his

release. While Alexander argues that the Jail’s policy “was simply to defer

_____________________

13

In other words, his complaint is devoid of factual allegations that Phlips (1) lacks

a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university with a minimum number of hours

dedicated to one of the required majors; (2) is not a registered nurse; and (3) has not

completed an alternative credentialing process. His allegation that she received “no formal

training period” from Taft is not enough to demonstrate that she is unqualified under 26

Tex. Admin. Code § 301.303(48).

18

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 19 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

completely to the discretion of correctional officers,” he does not allege that

he ever informed Jail officials—or Phlips—that he was no longer suicidal.

Alexander alternatively blames the violent cell for his severe

“psychological deterioration,” and claims that Phlips did nothing to remove

him therefrom. We cannot charge mental health professionals, contracted to

provide care to pretrial detainees, with releasing inmates from suicide cells

or improving the conditions of their protective confinement. They have no

authority to confine individuals or to free them from confinement. Cf.

McClure v. Foster, 465 F. App’x 373, 375 (5th Cir. 2012) (noting that the

complainant failed to show that it was the nurse’s duty to provide toilet

paper). Alexander provides only conclusory allegations demonstrating that

Phlips or the Jail knew—or had reason to believe—that his mental

deterioration was caused by the violent cell’s conditions, rather than his self-

reported suicidal ideation. This is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Alexander cannot demonstrate that the County “knowingly

subject[ed] [him] to inhumane conditions of confinement or abusive jail

practices” through its mental health treatment plan. Shepherd v. Dallas

County, 591 F.3d 445, 456 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the plan does not violate

the Constitution, we do not consider his municipal liability claim against the

County. See Valle v. City of Houston, 613 F.3d 536, 541-42 (requiring a

constitutional violation to impose municipal liability).

2

This leaves the Taft defendants. The Taft defendants are state actors

under § 1983. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54 (1988) (noting that “a

physician employed by [the State] to provide medical services to state prison

inmates[] act[s] under color of state law for the purposes of § 1983” when

providing medical care); Rosborough v. Mgmt. & Training Corp., 350 F.3d 459,

461 (5th Cir. 2003) (noting that private companies and employees that

19

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 20 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

manage state prisons “are subject to § 1983 liability because they are

performing a government function traditionally reserved to the state”).

When determining whether such individuals have violated the Constitution,

the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) “the deprivation alleged was

sufficiently serious” and (2) “the prison official possessed a sufficiently

culpable state of mind.” Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 664 (5th Cir.

2001). 14 That state of mind is deliberate indifference. Id.

We begin and end with deliberate indifference. “Deliberate

indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.” Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of

Crim. Just., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). In the context of medical care,

“[m]ere negligence, neglect, or medical malpractice” does not suffice.

Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991) (alteration in original)

(quoting Fielder v. Bosshard, 590 F.2d 105, 107 (5th Cir. 1979)). Where

“medical treatment was provided, even if it was negligent, disagreed-with,

and based on a perfunctory and inadequate evaluation, it was not denied.”

Petzold v. Rostollan, 946 F.3d 242, 250 (5th Cir. 2019). Because the Taft

defendants provided treatment—even if imperfect—Alexander’s claim fails.

Alexander points us to another case arising out of the Henderson

County Jail and involving the Taft defendants. See Albritton v. Henderson

County, No. 23-1723, 2024 WL 1776380 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2024). There,

the court stated that “[t]he system for inmates to access mental health care

at the Henderson County Jail amounted to a condition that left the inmates

with no avenues to access mental health care and this dereliction of care

_____________________

14

To qualify under the first of these two prongs, the “official’s act or omission

must have resulted in the denial of ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’”

Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). Although we hold that the Jail

did not knowingly provide constitutionally insufficient mental health care, we must also

ascertain whether the Taft defendants deprived Alexander of mental health services.

20

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 21 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

cannot be reasonably related to any legitimate governmental objective.” Id.

at *5. With respect to the Taft defendants, it considered allegations similar

to those Alexander makes here: Taft contracted with the County, delegated

all duties to an unlicensed professional, did not train or supervise that

individual, provided no mental health care at the Jail, and did not establish a

system through which the individual could contact Taft for assistance. Id. at

*6. The court concluded that Taft knew that no one could provide mental

health assistance and “[t]he substantial risk of harm of Taft flouting his

responsibilities to the individuals in need of mental health services while at

the [J]ail and outsourcing mental health care to an unqualified individual is

so obvious” that it did not matter if Taft actually knew of the inmate or was

aware of the substantial risk of harm. Id.

Albritton “ha[d] the ‘mental age’ of a six-year-old” and numerous

known disabilities. Id. at *1. He took “approximately eighteen daily

medications to treat his psychological and physical ailments,” and was prone

to danger when he did not understand his surroundings. Id. While housed

in the violent cell—despite lacking indications of suicidal thoughts—he did

not eat because he believed the food was poisoned, was not provided water,

and “had diarrhea . . . on the sleeping bench which no one cleaned up”

during the two-day detention. Id. at *2. It is unclear whether Taft’s aide at

the time, Jeffries, ever visited Albritton. The court found that the failure to

provide any sort of mental health care to an individual “like [Albritton]

experiencing a mental health crisis” could contribute to a finding of deliberate

indifference. Id. at *6 (emphasis added).

The facts here are highly distinguishable. Alexander reported that he

was suicidal and was moved to the violent cell. At that point, he claims he

mentally deteriorated and that Phlips failed to release him. Putting aside the

fact that authority to release him from the violent cell was left to the Jail—

not Taft and his employees—it is unclear what Phlips (or Taft) was to make

21

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 22 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

of his mental deterioration. Alexander seemed healthy during Phlips’s earlier

visits, but was moved to the violent cell after stating that he was suicidal. She

then found him unable to answer her questions. She could have drawn the

inference that he was not ready to be released from a suicide protection cell

because he had deteriorated between visits. Such a conclusion would be

logical, given that he had previously reported to her that he struggled with

depression and subsequently reported suicidal ideation. 15

Holding the Taft defendants liable would transform our consideration

of deliberate indifference into a post-hoc scrutiny of each determination of

inmates’ mental health statuses. Alexander cannot expose them to liability

for failing to release him from the violent cell under these circumstances. His

§ 1983 claim against the Taft defendants therefore fails. 16

_____________________

15

We therefore reject Alexander’s argument that she should have reported these

findings to Taft. The Jail provided Alexander with necessary protections. In Phlips’s view,

his mental health was being treated.

16

Alexander also brings a supervisory liability claim against Taft. This requires

that he identify a constitutional violation that caused his injury. See Valle, 613 F.3d at 541-

42. The same is true if he chooses to bring such a claim under a failure-to-train or failure-

to-supervise theory. See Littell v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 894 F.3d 616, 624 (5th Cir. 2018)

(“[W]hen a municipal entity enacts a facially valid policy but fails to train its employees to

implement it in a constitutional manner, that failure constitutes ‘official policy’ that can

support municipal liability if it ‘amounts to deliberate indifference.’” (quoting City of

Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989))). Since he fails to demonstrate deliberate

indifference, Alexander has pleaded no constitutional violation and therefore cannot

demonstrate supervisory liability against Taft in his individual capacity under any theory.

The Rule 28(j) material that Alexander filed—the recent opinion in Anderson v.

Henderson County, No. 24-cv-2394 (N.D. Tex. June 23, 2025)—contemplates different

circumstances. There, the detainee “suffer[ed] from muscular dystrophy,” resulting “in

a significant speech impediment and an inability to move or walk as easily as a healthy

person.” Anderson, slip op. at 1. He, too, suffered from PTSD, but was prescribed

medication for its treatment. Id. at 2. Upon arrival at the Jail, he was “immediately placed

in the . . . ‘violent cell’ for seven days.” Id. During that time, despite informing Jail staff

22

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 23 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

V

Alexander asks that we require officers and mental health providers to

second-guess inmates’ disclosure of suicidal ideation. We decline to create

such a requirement. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s order of

dismissal.

_____________________

of his medical conditions, “he was never seen by any medical or mental health staff.” Id.

(emphasis added). Moreover, he never received his prescription medication. Id. at 2–3.

As described above, Phlips visited Alexander. While Alexander may plead similar

facts to Anderson—including that Taft provided inadequate training or that his employee

was unauthorized to provide psychological services, see id. at 9—he was visited by a mental

health professional affiliated with Taft’s practice. Moreover, his circumstances were vastly

different: He experienced suicidal ideation. The Taft defendants knew that when Phlips

visited him, and took that into account when responding. Anderson, on the other hand,

failed to receive any of his prescription medication, or any treatment at all. The facts in

these cases are inapposite, and Anderson therefore does not counsel against dismissal.

To be clear, we do not hold that every actionless visit by a mental health

professional passes constitutional muster. We hold that, under Alexander’s specific

circumstances, as alleged, Phlips and the Taft defendants provided the constitutional

minimum of care required.

23

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 24 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

James L. Dennis, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

After we issued our opinions in this case, seven leading prison-law

scholars filed an amicus brief warning that the majority opinion “makes basic

errors of prison law,” “misdescribes the Fourteenth Amendment’s due

process inquiry,” “misstates the constitutional inquiry for deliberate

indifference to a serious medical need,” “addresses hypothetical concerns

that simply do not exist,” and “ignores the impossible burdens the opinion

imposes on incarcerated litigants.” 1 These are serious charges.

* * *

How did we get here? Jail officials punished pretrial detainee Ronnie

Alexander by denying him a toilet, toilet paper, running water, recreation,

bedding, clothing, and sufficient drinking water, all while subjecting him to

twenty-four-hour lighting and a cell contaminated with human waste.

Alexander not only lived in that filth for five days, but he also developed

infections in his feet from exposure to urine and fecal matter—allegations the

majority ignores entirely.

That type of error pervades the majority opinion. Correctly applying

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Alexander has plausibly shown that

jail officials misused suicide-watch protocols to punish a pretrial detainee.

With respect for my esteemed colleagues, I dissent.

I

“Due process requires that a pretrial detainee not be punished.” Hare

v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 651 (5th Cir. 1996) (Dennis, J., specially

concurring). “In determining whether particular restrictions and conditions

accompanying pretrial detention amount to punishment in the constitutional

_____________________

1

The amicus brief is appended to this dissent.

24

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 25 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

sense of that word, a court must decide whether the disability is imposed for

the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other

legitimate governmental purpose.” Id. (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,

538 (1979)). “Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part

of detention facility officials, that determination generally will turn on

‘whether an alternative purpose to which [the restriction] may rationally be

connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to

the alternative purpose assigned [to it].’” Id. (first citing Bell, 441 U.S. at 538;

and then quoting Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168–69

(1963)).

Put simply, conditions must advance a legitimate governmental goal

and cannot be excessively harsh in doing so. The district court, however,

dismissed Alexander’s conditions-of-confinement claim solely on the ground

that the conditions in the “violent cell” were justified by the need to prevent

Alexander’s suicide and, thus, were reasonably related to a legitimate

governmental objective. The majority opinion initially describes Bell’s test

correctly but repeats the same error: it omits the proportionality requirement

in its analysis, addressing only whether the jail’s actions purportedly

advanced a legitimate objective. Yet, as the amicus brief explains, a great

weight of authority holds that exposing a detainee to the conditions

Alexander alleges is excessive in relation to any legitimate penological

purpose. App. at 3–4. The majority offers no answer, instead opting to tacitly

and fundamentally alter the Bell test.

At any rate, the majority opinion’s governmental goal rationale itself

badly misapplies Rule 12(b)(6). Alexander alleges that he falsely claimed to

be suicidal as a last resort to escape placement in a dangerous group cell,

where other inmates repeatedly threatened him. He further alleges that jail

officials knew he was not suicidal but used his plea as a pretext to place him

25

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 26 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

in the violent cell for punitive purposes. Several key facts, all occurring in

rapid succession, support an inference of retaliatory motive.

March 8: Alexander was booked into the jail. A Henderson

County mental health professional conducted an “observation

clearance,” observing no concerns with his mental health.

March 9 (daytime): The same provider performed a follow-

up and again documented “no concerns” with Alexander’s

mental status.

March 9 (evening): Guards placed Alexander in group

detention “with some of the most violent and dangerous men

being held at the Jail.” These inmates immediately made

serious threats against him. Alexander feared for his life, due to

both the threats by his cellmates and his spiking blood pressure,

which had already required treatment since he had arrived at

the jail.

Later that evening: Alexander informed guards of the threats

and requested to be moved “multiple times.” The guards

refused. “Thinking he had no other option, he told [a]

correctional officer . . . that he was suicidal, believing that

would force the jail to move him out of the group detention cell

for medical or mental health care evaluation.”

Shortly after midnight, March 10: Officers transferred

Alexander to the “violent cell.” 2 During the walk, guards

_____________________

2

The majority opinion observes that “Alexander was not transferred until he

informed correctional officers that he was suicidal,” which “alone implies that the officers

took his statement at face value, even if they did not subjectively believe him.” Ante, at 9.

Drawing that inference at the pleading stage inverts Rule 12(b)(6): it assumes facts in favor

of the moving party, not the plaintiff, which is precisely what the Rule forbids. United States

ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 735 F.3d 202, 204 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting United

States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 625 F.3d 262, 266 (5th Cir. 2010)). The

opposite inference—one we are required to credit at this stage—is that the officers knew

Alexander was not suicidal, understood that he was using the claim as a desperate attempt

to escape a threatening environment, and chose to punish him for it. He had been in the

group cell only a few hours, had repeatedly asked for protection, and had already been

26

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 27 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

repeatedly called him a “bitch.” One said, “You really fucked

up now, bitch.”

March 10–15: While Alexander remained in the violent cell,

guards taunted him with repeated insults and threats. On one

occasion, they paraded a police dog outside his cell and loudly

discussed taking Alexander into a field and unleashing the dog

on him. They threatened to kill him using a “barbed wire

guillotine.” Just before he was released from the cell, one

officer said: “Ronnie Alexander, you are not leaving this

facility alive.”

At this early stage, these allegations combined with their tight

chronology plausibly support Alexander’s allegation that the officers did not

act to protect Alexander, but to punish him for complaining about his safety

in group detention. The mental health evaluations showing no suicidal

concerns, the guards’ refusal to move him despite his clear fear for his safety,

the retaliatory language during his transfer, and the continuing harassment

while in the violent cell together present a coherent narrative of punitive

intent. In the context of a pretrial detainee, “an inference that governmental

intent was punitive is equivalent to an inference that the challenged condition

is unconstitutional.” Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 106 (5th Cir. 1996).

Critically, none of these alleged facts appear in the district court’s

opinion. The court’s analysis of the government’s interest instead assumes

Alexander was a known suicide risk. That assumption favors the defendants

over the plaintiff, which is improper at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Q Clothier New Orleans, L.L.C. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 29 F.4th 252, 256

_____________________

ignored. When he cried suicide, the officers responded not with concern but with hostility,

using his plea as a convenient excuse to isolate and degrade him. That response does not

reflect protective intent. It reflects retaliation.

27

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 28 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

(5th Cir. 2022) (“The court must accept the well-pleaded facts as true and

view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” not the defendant).

The majority opinion concedes that “[t]he district court did not

consider these allegations.” Ante, at 9 n.5. In other words, we agree the

district court gave no consideration at all to these specific, non-conclusory

allegations. 3 That should end the analysis. We are a “court of review, not first

view.” Stringer v. Town of Jonesboro, 986 F.3d 502, 509 (5th Cir. 2021)

(quoting Cruson v. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 954 F.3d 240, 249 n.7 (5th Cir. 2020)).

Undeterred, the majority opinion proceeds to reject Alexander’s

conditions-of-confinement claim as speculative, reasoning that he failed to

allege an express admission of punitive intent or identify “other suicidal

inmates [that] received different treatment.” Ante, at 9–11. I do not follow.

The question here is whether his allegations allow us to plausibly infer

retaliatory or punitive conduct under the guise of suicide prevention. See, e.g.,

Simons v. Clemons, 752 F.2d 1053, 1056 (5th Cir. 1985) (analyzing Bell and

inquiring whether an “express intent to punish” could be “infer[red] . . .

from the pleadings”); Bell, 441 U.S. at 538–39 (permitting courts to infer an

intent to punish). As outlined above, they do. The majority’s refusal to infer

_____________________

3

The majority opinion seems to suggest the district court was free to ignore these

allegations because they are not “well-pleaded allegations of fact.” Ante, at 9 n.5. It is

difficult to see what, exactly, is not “well-pleaded” about an allegation that a jail official

told Alexander, “You really fucked up now, bitch,” or that another said, “Ronnie

Alexander, you are not leaving this facility alive.”

In the alternative, the majority dismisses “any threats directed at Alexander while

he was in the violent cell” on the ground that they do “not creat[e] a condition of

confinement,” citing the general rule that “[m]ere allegations of verbal abuse do not

present actionable claims under” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ante, at 10 & n.6 (quoting Bender v.

Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993)). Alexander does not make that argument. He

cites the threats not as a standalone claim, but as circumstantial evidence of the officers’

punitive intent.

28

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 29 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

anything about state of mind despite numerous explicit comments,

defendants’ associated conduct, and context (all at the motion to dismiss

stage), if applied widely, would immunize numerous constitutional violations

committed by all but the most proudly malicious defendants.

This case exemplifies that risk. If Alexander’s allegations are true,

then the jail violated the Fourteenth Amendment by using suicide protocols

to punish a pretrial detainee—denying him a toilet, toilet paper, running

water, recreation, bedding, clothing, and sufficient drinking water, while

subjecting him to twenty-four-hour lighting and a cell contaminated with

fecal matter and urine. 4 Ante, at 13 n.9 (“We have previously held that similar

conditions violate the Eighth Amendment where there is punitive intent.”

(first citing McCray v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332, 1336 (5th Cir. 1975); and then

citing Alexander v. Tippah County, 351 F.3d 626, 628–31 (5th Cir. 2003))). 5

_____________________

4

My reading of the record diverges from the majority opinion, which discounts

Alexander’s allegation—“that ‘[t]he [cell’s] floor had not been cleaned and was covered

in dried urine and fecal matter’”—based on a color image showing an “off-white” cell that

“appears clean” and “certainly devoid of fecal matter.” Ante, at 3 n.2. First, that is not the

full allegation. Alexander also alleges that fecal matter and urine were present in the drain

located at the center of the cell floor, and that he had to manually force the feces through

the grates using a paper cup. He further alleges that the floor was soiled with dried waste

left by prior inmates housed in the toilet-less cell.

Second, although the complaint includes two photos of the cell, they are blurry. I

cannot say they either support or contradict Alexander’s account. Given the ambiguity,

this case does not fall within the narrow exception recognized in Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.

372, 380 (2007), which permits a court to disregard a plaintiff’s version of events only when

it is “so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him.”

“Scott was an exceptional case with an extremely limited holding,” inapplicable to

ambiguous photo evidence. Aguirre v. City of San Antonio, 995 F.3d 395, 410 (5th Cir. 2021).

5

McCray and Alexander involved convicted individuals and were analyzed under

the Eighth Amendment. By contrast, Alexander was a pretrial detainee, so his claims arise

under the Fourteenth Amendment. Still, we may look to those cases for guidance because

a pretrial detainee’s due process rights are said to be “at least as great as the Eighth

29

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 30 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

The majority opinion rejects Alexander’s claim partly out of a policy

concern for placing jailers in an untenable position: liable whether they act or

refrain. Ante, at 10–11. The allegations in the present case fall within neither

horn of that dilemma. Taking Alexander’s allegations as true, the officers

knew he was not suicidal, knew he feared for his safety in his group housing,

and deliberately chose a punitive response that exposed him to new risks.

This is not a matter of difficult judgment; it is punishment of a pretrial

detainee disguised as suicide watch. The Constitution forbids that. Bell, 441

U.S. at 535.

II

That leaves the claims focusing on medical care. The district court

never addressed Alexander’s claims that the jail provided constitutionally

deficient mental health care. Ante, at 16 n.12 (majority opinion agreeing that

these particular claims were not “fully considered”). By disposing of the

issue without explanation, the court effectively dismissed the claims sub

silentio, undermining meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., McInrow v.

Harris County, 878 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir. 1989). While Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12 does not require findings of fact or conclusions of law, the

parties are still entitled to understand the basis for final judgment. Hanson v.

Aetna Life & Cas., 625 F.2d 573, 575 (5th Cir. 1980). As we have stressed,

“discussion by the trial judge” is often essential to facilitate proper review.

Myers v. Gulf Oil Corp., 731 F.2d 281, 283 (5th Cir. 1984). That is especially

true where, as here, the record does not reveal which of several theories the

district court may have relied on. Mosley v. Ogden Marine, Inc., 480 F.2d 1226

(5th Cir. 1973). When a court’s reasoning is either vague or absent, effective

_____________________

Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.” City of Revere v. Mass. Gen.

Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983).

30

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 31 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

appellate review becomes all but impossible. McInrow, 878 F.2d at 836. In

those circumstances, we have consistently remanded to obtain at least some

explanation of the district court’s rationale. See, e.g., Myers, 731 F.2d at 284.

The majority opinion devotes seven pages to analyzing the medical

care claims. Ante, at 15–22. Yet it cites no analysis from the district court.

None exists. Instead, the majority opinion relies on the principle that we may

affirm on any ground supported by the record, even one not reached by the

district court, if the argument was raised below. Id. at 16 n.12 (citing Gilbert

v. Donahoe, 751 F.3d 303, 311 (5th Cir. 2014)). But that principle applies only

when the district court has actually considered the claim. Although

Alexander’s mental health care claims were raised and briefed, the district

court gave them no consideration. Vacatur and remand are warranted. Ashley

v. Clay County, 125 F.4th 654, 662 n.5 (5th Cir. 2025) (“It is not our role to

address a question that the district court left unresolved . . . as both a matter

of judicial restraint and sound policy.”).

As the prison-law scholars well explain, the majority opinion is

incorrect in any event:

Pretrial detainees are entitled to adequate medical care. Estelle

v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Hare v. City of Corinth,

Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 642 (5th Cir. 1996). A jail official violates

this constitutional protection when deliberately indifferent to a

pretrial detainee’s serious medical needs. Id. The test applies

equally to mental health issues as to physical ones. Id.

Deliberate indifference requires that a jail official subjectively

“knows of and disregards an excessive risk” to health or safety.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994); see, e.g., Easter v.

Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 464–65 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that there

was an Eighth Amendment liability where the prison nurse

offered non treatment options to a patient with a history of

cardiac problems who was experiencing chest pains). A jail

31

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 32 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

official’s knowledge of a substantial risk of harm can be inferred

if the health risk is obvious. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842 n.8.

The panel majority fails to state or apply this black letter

standard to the County. Instead, the majority simply holds that

the County provided mental health assistance through

“protection from violence or suicide” without considering

whether Alexander had a serious medical need or whether the

County was deliberately indifferent to it by failing to have any

qualified mental health staff present. Ante, at 18. The majority

says that Alexander failed to demonstrate that the County’s

“mental health treatment plan” was constitutionally

inadequate, id. at 19, yet acknowledges that Alexander

plausibly alleged a “total, intentional deprivation of qualified

mental health care,” id. at 15. An entirely unqualified person

conducting a fleeting interview with Alexander more than two

days after Alexander was placed in isolation cannot constitute

a treatment plan. See Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 336 (5th Cir.

2004). The majority errs too in applying this standard to Phlips

herself by considering only what she did not do—move

Alexander out of the suicide cell—rather than on what she did

do: nothing. Ante, at 18; see Gates, 376 F.3d at 336.

App. at 4–5 (citation modified).

Alexander’s allegations establish a plausible claim that the jail

provided constitutionally deficient mental health care, and I would therefore

vacate the district court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

III

Ultimately, the majority opinion “decline[s] to . . . require officers and

mental health providers to second-guess inmates’ disclosure of suicidal

ideation.” Ante, at 22–23. That is not the rule Alexander seeks. He does not

argue that officials must second-guess every report of suicidal ideation.

Rather, he alleges that, in his case, the officials knew he was not suicidal and

used suicide protocols as a method of punishment. I am deeply concerned

32

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 33 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

that the majority’s decision creates an untenable exception to Bell, permitting

jailers to punish detainees under the guise of suicide prevention, so long as

they offer even the thinnest pretext, despite substantial evidence of punitive

intent.

I respectfully dissent.

33

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 34 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

No. 24-10663

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

RONNIE ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

PHILIP R. TAFT PSY D AND ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.; HENDERSON COUNTY TEXAS;

NATHANIEL PATTERSON; TAYLOR CALDWELL; MORGAN FAIN; NOAH KREIE; WILLIAM

TRUSSEL; DORA MARTINEZ; MELISSA HARMON; PHILIP TAFT,

Defendants–Appellees.

On Appeal from a Final Judgment of the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Case No. 3:22-cv-395, Hon. Brantley Starr

BRIEF OF PRISON LAW SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING

APPELLANT AND REHEARING

Samuel Weiss Jim Davy

RIGHTS BEHIND BARS ALL RISE TRIAL & APPELLATE

1800 M Street NW Front 1 P.O. Box 15216

#33821 Philadelphia, PA 19125

Washington, DC 20033 (215) 792-3579

(202) 455-4399 jimdavy@allriselaw.org

sam@rightsbehindbars.org

Counsel for Amici

August 14, 2025

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 35 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

In addition to the persons described in the Parties’ certificates of interested

persons, the following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this case

within the meaning of Rule 28.2.1:

Bakhshay, Shirin, Amicus

Dangaran, D, Amicus

Davy, Jim, Amici’s counsel

Fenster, Mark, Amicus

Godfrey, Nicole, Amicus

Godsoe, Cynthia, Amicus

Jefferis, Danielle, Amicus

Weiss, Samuel, Amici’s counsel and Amicus.

i

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 36 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

Certificate of Interested Persons ................................................................................... ii

Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................... iii

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

Argument ........................................................................................................................ 1

I. The panel opinion makes basic errors of prison law. ........................................... 1

A. The Court misdescribes the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process

inquiry. ........................................................................................................... 1

B. The opinion misstates the constitutional inquiry for deliberate

indifference to a serious medical need. ......................................................... 4

II. In the context of prison law, the majority’s concerns are unfounded,

and the opinion will have considerable unintended consequences. .................... 5

A. The majority addresses hypothetical concerns that simply do not

exist................................................................................................................. 6

B. The majority conversely ignores the impossible burdens the

opinion imposes on incarcerated litigants. ................................................... 8

Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 10

Appendix of Amici Curiae ............................................................................................ 1a

ii

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 37 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Bell v. Wolfish,

441 U.S. 520 (1979) ............................................................................................ 1, 2, 3

Billman v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr.,

56 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 1995) ........................................................................................ 9

Brooks v. Warden,

800 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................. 3

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,

489 U.S. 189 (1989) .................................................................................................... 7

DeSpain v. Uphoff,

264 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................... 3

Easter v. Powell,

467 F.3d 459 (5th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................... 4

Edwards v. Arocho,

125 F.4th 336 (2d Cir. 2024) ...................................................................................... 2

Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97 (1976) .................................................................................................. 4, 6

Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825 (1994) ............................................................................................ 4, 7, 9

Gates v. Cook,

376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................. 3, 5

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.,

74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996) ........................................................................................ 4

Horvath v. City of Leander,

946 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................... 7

J.H. v. Williamson County,

951 F.3d 709 (6th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................... 2

Johnson v. Johnson,

385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................... 8

Jones v. Bock,

549 U.S. 199 (2007) .................................................................................................... 8

LaReau v. MacDougall,

473 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1972)........................................................................................ 3

Littlefield v. Deland,

641 F.2d 729 (10th Cir. 1981) .................................................................................... 2

May v. Sheahan,

226 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................... 2

McKeithan v. Jones,

212 F. App’x 129 (3d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) ............................................................ 9

Morris v. Zefferi,

601 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................... 2

iii

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 38 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued

Page(s)

Naranjo v. Thompson,

809 F.3d 793 (5th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................... 9

Sims v. Griffin,

35 F.4th 945 (5th Cir. 2022)..................................................................................... 10

Stevenson v. Tocé,

113 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2024)................................................................................... 10

Taylor v. Riojas,

592 U.S. 7 (2020) ........................................................................................................ 4

Whitley v. Albers,

475 U.S. 312 (1986) .................................................................................................... 7

Williamson v. Stirling,

912 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................... 2

Young v. Quinlan,

960 F.2d 351 (3d Cir. 1992)........................................................................................ 3

Zadeh v. Robinson,

928 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................... 7

Ziglar v. Abassi,

137 S.Ct. 1843 (2017) ................................................................................................. 7

Other Authorities

Institute for Justice, Results: Who wins qualified immunity cases, and how often do

courts grant or deny qualified immunity? ................................................................. 8

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv) ......................................................................................... 9

iv

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 39 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE

Amici are professors of law who study, teach, and write about prison and jail

litigation. They submit this brief to share their views on the substance of prison

law and the practical realities of prisoner litigation. A full list of signatories appears

as an appendix.

INTRODUCTION

Amici urge the panel to rehear this opinion, or at minimum reissue it as

unpublished. It makes basic errors of prison law—both doctrinal and in assessing the

context and incentives of prison civil rights litigation. If applied widely, it would

immunize unconstitutional conduct across the Circuit.

ARGUMENT

I. The panel opinion makes basic errors of prison law.

A. The Court misdescribes the Fourteenth Amendment’s due

process inquiry.

Pretrial detainees cannot be “punished.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979).

In Bell, the Court explained that a pretrial detainee’s conditions of confinement can

constitute punishment either because of a jail’s “expressed intent to punish” or an

inferred one. 441 U.S. at 538–39. The latter inquiry examines (1) “whether an

alternative purpose to which the restriction may rationally be connected is assignable

for it, and [(2)] whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose

assigned to it.” Id. at 538 (cleaned up). In short, conditions must advance a legitimate

goal and cannot be excessively harsh in doing so. Id. at 548.

1

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 40 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

In Bell, the Court described the importance of step two of this test by giving an

outlandish example: “loading a detainee with chains and shackles and throwing him

in a dungeon.” Id. Doing so “may ensure his presence at trial and preserve the

security of the institution” but would nonetheless “support a conclusion that the

purpose for which they were imposed was to punish.” Id. The Court thus warned that

absent a proportionality requirement, jails would have undue leeway to impose harsh

conditions of confinement for purposes of punishment but escape liability because the

conditions had some connection to a legitimate goal of pretrial detention. Id.

Circuit courts regularly apply Bell’s proportionality test to infer a purpose to

punish in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Morris v. Zefferi, 601 F.3d 805,

811 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that transporting a pretrial detainee “in a small,

unsanitary dog cage for the ninety-minute drive … with no compelling urgency and

other options available, was excessive in relation to the goal of preventing escape, and

thus, an inference may reasonably be made” that the conditions constituted

punishment); see also Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 179 (4th Cir. 2018);

Edwards v. Arocho, 125 F.4th 336, 352–53 (2d Cir. 2024); J.H. v. Williamson County,

951 F.3d 709, 718 (6th Cir. 2020); May v. Sheahan, 226 F.3d 876, 884 (7th Cir. 2000);

Littlefield v. Deland, 641 F.2d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 1981). In a case like Morris, the jail

had a legitimate objective in maintaining security during transportation, and placing

the detainee in a urine-soaked dog cage advanced that objective—only Bell’s

proportionality test supports the obvious conclusion that doing so nonetheless

constituted punishment.

2

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 41 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

Here, the panel majority initially described Bell’s test correctly but then simply

omitted the proportionality requirement in its analysis. Slip Op. at 6, 7-8. The

majority explained that Alexander must demonstrate the jail’s restrictions were “not

reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective,” and then provided

examples of legitimate objectives related to preventing self-harm. Id. at 8, 11-12. This

analysis, however, only addressed the first prong of Bell. 441 U.S. at 538. The Court

failed to address whether these restrictions were excessive in relation to that purpose.

Slip Op. at 6; see 441 U.S. at 538.

In abandoning Bell’s proportionality analysis, the majority failed to engage with

the specific harsh conditions that form the basis for a Fourteenth Amendment claim

under Bell. Slip Op. at 6; see 441 U.S. at 538. A great weight of caselaw holds that it

is excessive in relation to any penological purpose to expose prisoners to feces. See,

e.g., Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 334 (5th Cir. 2004); Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d

1295, 1303–04 (11th Cir. 2015); DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974 (10th Cir. 2001);

Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 365 (3d Cir. 1992); LaReau v. MacDougall, 473 F.2d

974, 978 (2d Cir. 1972). Here, Alexander not only lived in his waste for five days, but

developed infections in his feet from exposure to urine and fecal matter—allegations

that the Court not only failed to apply in step two of the Bell analysis but ignored

entirely. Slip Op. at 6; ROA.114 ¶40.

Similarly, while the majority insisted that Alexander’s case was “a far cry from

the horrifying facts” of Taylor v. Riojas, in which the U.S. Supreme Court summarily

reversed this Court for failing to find a clearly established Eighth Amendment

violation, much of the case is strikingly similar. Slip Op. at 12 n.8. Both cases involve

3

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 42 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

a man who was thrown naked into a filthy cell by taunting guards for five or six days

because of a purported suicide threat. Id. at 1; see Taylor v. Riojas, 592 U.S. 7, 8–9

(2020). Some of the facts from Taylor may indeed have been more “horrifying” than

here, Slip Op. at 12 n.8, but whatever factual distinctions exist only even matter in

step two of the Bell inquiry the majority skipped, because defendants in both cases

had identical rationales for their similar behavior.

B. The opinion misstates the constitutional inquiry for deliberate

indifference to a serious medical need.

Pretrial detainees are entitled to adequate medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 642 (5th Cir. 1996).

A jail official violates this constitutional protection when deliberately indifferent to a

pretrial detainee’s serious medical needs. Id. The test applies equally to mental

health issues as to physical ones. Hare, 74 F.3d at 642. Deliberate indifference

requires that a jail official subjectively “knows of and disregards an excessive risk” to

health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994); see e.g., Easter v.

Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 464–65 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that there was an Eighth

Amendment liability where the prison nurse offered non treatment options to a

patient with a history of cardiac problems who was experiencing chest pains). A jail

official’s knowledge of a substantial risk of harm can be inferred if the health risk is

obvious. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842 n.8.

The panel majority failed to state or apply this black letter standard to the County.

Instead, the majority simply held that the County provided mental health assistance

through “protection from violence or suicide” without considering whether Alexander

4

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 43 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

had a serious medical need or whether the County was deliberately indifferent to it

by failing to have any qualified mental health staff present. Slip Op. at 15. The

majority held that Alexander failed to demonstrate that the County’s “mental health

treatment plan” was constitutionally inadequate, but Alexander plausibly alleged a

“total, intentional deprivation of qualified mental health care.” Slip Op. at 19, 15. An

entirely unqualified person conducting a fleeting interview with Alexander more than

two days after Alexander was placed in isolation cannot constitute a treatment plan.

ROA.114 ¶¶ 4, 99, 104, 107, 122–23; see Gates, 376 F.3d at 336. The Court erred too

in applying this standard to Phlips herself when it considered only on what she did

not do—move Alexander out of the suicide cell—rather than on what she did do:

nothing. Slip Op. at 15; see Gates, 376 F.3d at 336.

II. In the context of prison law, the majority’s concerns are unfounded,

and the opinion will have considerable unintended consequences.

The panel majority expresses concern that allowing Mr. Alexander’s claim to

proceed would create a “minefield” for correctional defendants. Slip Op. at 11. That

concern is misplaced. The structures of prison law and the PLRA, including high

substantive standards that pro se incarcerated litigants cannot marshal evidence to

meet and the judge-made doctrine of qualified immunity, already prevent prisoners

from redressing many constitutional violations. Additionally, those difficult

substantive standards incorporating the subjective state-of-mind of correctional

defendants means that prisoners rely even more than other litigants on inferences

from allegations and record evidence. Officers rarely state their sadistic or malicious

intent explicitly—courts must infer it from context. The majority’s misplaced concern

5

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 44 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

about prison defendants’ hypothetical liability overrides incarcerated peoples’

entitlement to reasonable inferences, and unfairly bars them from proving already-

difficult claims.

A. The majority addresses hypothetical concerns that simply do

not exist.

The majority fears reading too much into “vulgar comments,” Slip Op. at 9,

“inappropriate” statements, Slip Op. at 10, or even “threats directed at Alexander,”

id. It worries that inferring malicious intent on the part of officers who, for example,

“threaten[ed] to kill [Alexander] with a barbed wire guillotine” and told him not to

expect to “leave this facility alive,” id. at 10 n.6, would actually “result in the denial

of constitutional protections” to incarcerated people. Id. at 11. That worry is

backwards. Prison civil rights law already provides more-than-sufficient protection

to officers, obviating any need to undercut Rule 12(b)(6) inferential standards.

First, the substantive standards in prison civil rights cases are already often very

high. Substantive claims under the Eighth Amendment include a “subjective” prong

that requires plaintiffs to show high mens rea on the part of correctional defendants.1

As noted, claims for inadequate medical care require deliberate indifference, meaning

that a defendant knew—not should have known, but actually knew—of a substantial

risk of serious harm and intentionally disregarded it. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842-43.

Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force similarly require subjective intent to

1 Pretrial detention claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment but this Court

has held that Eighth Amendment standards apply in most contexts. See Crandel v.

Hall, 75 F.4th 537, 544 (5th Cir. 2023).

6

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 45 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

cause harm on the part of an officer—so even objectively unreasonable and seriously

injurious uses of force may not trigger liability without “wanton infliction of pain.”

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). Because of the duty that the constitution

imposes upon the State to “assume some responsibility for [the] safety and general

well-being” of someone in its custody, DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc.

Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989), corrections officials cannot disregard a risk of

substantial harm to an incarcerated person. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842-43. But an

incarcerated plaintiff must show not only that the defendant had knowledge “of the

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of harm exists,”

but that the official did in fact “draw the inference” and consciously disregard the

risk. Id. at 837, 842. Other common prison civil rights claims, like First Amendment

retaliation, look to the state of mind of the defendant also. As claims brought by

prisoners require demanding proof of a defendant’s state of mind, the standards

themselves already shield all but the most malicious defendants.

Second, prison officials benefit from the atextual, judge-made doctrine of qualified

immunity. Several judges of this court have explained that, “Nothing in the text of §

1983—either as originally enacted in 1871 or as it is codified today—supports the

imposition of the ‘clearly established’ requirement.” Horvath v. City of Leander, 946

F.3d 787, 801 (5th Cir. 2020) (Ho, J., concurring the judgment and dissenting in part);

Zadeh v. Robinson, 928 F.3d 457, 480 (5th Cir. 2019) (Willet, J., concurring in part

and dissenting in part) (discussing growing calls to reform qualified immunity). And

the Supreme Court might well reform it. See Ziglar v. Abassi, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 1872

(2017) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring the judgment) (“In an

7

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 46 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

appropriate case, we should reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence.”). Until

the Court does, however, qualified immunity protects officers who violate rights every

day. See Institute for Justice, Results: Who wins qualified immunity cases, and how

often do courts grant or deny qualified immunity? (listing 5th Circuit as denying

qualified immunity in only 16% of appeals). Correctly applying Rule 12 to Alexander’s

allegations will not put jail officials between a rock and a hard place with liability, as

all of prison law is structured to only create liability for significant misconduct.

B. The majority ignores the impossible burdens the opinion

imposes on incarcerated litigants.

Prisoners, more than most litigants, depend on fairly-construed inferences at the

motion to dismiss and summary judgment stages because of the difficult substantive

standards with subjective elements that they must prove to win their claims. The

PLRA, court procedures, and other features of litigation specific to pro se incarcerated

litigants—including limits on the sorts of discovery that would allow them to obtain

state-of-mind information from defendants—pose obstacles independent of and

exacerbating the onerous substantive standards. Declining to give incarcerated

litigants reasonable inferences risks immunizing entire categories of unconstitutional

conduct in prisons and jails across the Circuit.

Aside from the difficult substantive standards, the PLRA prevents many

meritorious cases outright. Many never make it to court at all because prisons set

their own exhaustion rules, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007), and often design

onerous exhaustion regimes, see, e.g., Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 519 (5th Cir.

2004) (holding that a prisoner could sue about only some sexual assaults among

8

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 47 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

many, based on the grievance time limit). Prisoners cannot easily investigate their

claims prior to filing because their facility has a monopoly on information about

defendants’ identities and most relevant facts. See, e.g., Billman v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr.,

56 F.3d 785, 789 (7th Cir. 1995) (“Billman is a prison inmate. His opportunities for

conducting a precomplaint inquiry are, we assume, virtually nil.”). When prisoners

do file, they cannot get those facts in discovery, either. They are not entitled to initial

disclosures, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv), are often barred from receiving information

because of security concerns, Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 798 (5th Cir. 2015)

(explaining that plaintiff “was barred from viewing and responding to discovery that

defendants had filed under seal”), and typically do not get to take depositions of

correctional defendants without court intervention. See, e.g., McKeithan v. Jones, 212

F. App’x 129, 131 (3d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (rejecting plaintiff’s request for an oral

deposition, calling it “unorthodox”). And not getting discovery—particularly not

getting to question defendants—imposes a unique burden on pro se incarcerated

litigants who must show defendants’ subjective state of mind as part of their claims.

Absent robust discovery, proving correctional defendants’ subjective state-of-mind

depends on reasonable inferences. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged this

in its seminal cases addressing the difficult substantive standards. Farmer, for

example, noted that plaintiffs could provide knowledge of a substantial risk of harm

through either direct or circumstantial evidence—i.e. evidence from which one can

draw inferences about state of mind. Farmer, 511 U.S. 837, 842. Most circuits,

including this one, draw inferences about subjective knowledge of a substantial risk

of harm based upon the obviousness of a serious medical need—because most

9

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 48 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

defendants deny having knowledge. Sims v. Griffin, 35 F.4th 945, 949-50 (5th Cir.

2022) (denying summary judgment because of fact dispute over inference about

clarity of need for treatment); see also Stevenson v. Tocé, 113 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2024).

The majority’s refusal to infer anything about state of mind despite numerous explicit

comments, defendants’ associated conduct, and context—all at the motion to dismiss

stage—if applied widely, would immunize numerous constitutional violations

committed by all but the most proudly malicious defendants.

CONCLUSION

The panel should rehear this case, or, at least, withdraw it and issue it as an

unpublished decision.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Samuel Weiss

Jim Davy Samuel Weiss

ALL RISE TRIAL & APPELLATE RIGHTS BEHIND BARS

P.O. Box 15216 1800 M Street NW Front 1

Philadelphia, PA 19125 #33821

(215) 792-3579 Washington, DC 20033

jimdavy@allriselaw.org (202) 455-4399

sam@rightsbehindbars.org

Counsel for Amici Curiae

August 14, 2025

10

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 49 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(C), I certify that

this brief:

(i) complies with the type-volume limitation of Rule 32(a)(7)(B) because it contains

fewer than 2,600 words, including footnotes and excluding the parts of the brief

exempted by Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(iii); and

(ii) complies with the typeface requirements of Rule 32(a)(5) and the type-style

requirements of Rule 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared using Microsoft Office

Word 16.99, set in Century Schoolbook font in 12-point; and

(iii) that this brief was scanned for viruses prior to submission.

/s/ Samuel Weiss

Samuel Weiss

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 50 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 14, 2025 this brief was filed using the Court’s CM/ECF

system. All participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served

electronically via that system. I further certify that this brief complies with Fifth

Circuit Rule 25.2.13 regarding redactions.

/s/ Samuel Weiss

Sam Weiss

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 51 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

APPENDIX

Case: 24-10663 Document: 120-1 Page: 52 Date Filed: 12/23/2025

APPENDIX OF AMICI CURIAE

Name of Amicus Curiae. The below sign in their personal capacities. Their

affiliations are listed for purposes of identification only.

- Bakhshay, Shirin. Assistant Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.

- Dangaran, D. Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

William S. Richardson School of Law.

- Fenster, Mark. Marshall M. Criser Eminent Scholar Chair in Electronic

Communications and Administrative Law, Levin College of Law,

University of Florida.

- Godfrey, Nicole. Assistant Professor of Law, Sturm College of Law, University

of Denver.

- Godsoe, Cynthia. Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research and

Scholarship, Brooklyn Law School.

- Jefferis, Danielle. Schmid Professor for Excellence in Research, Assistant

Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law.

- Weiss, Samuel. Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School where he teaches the

course “Prison Law.”

1a