# Guidry v. LA Dept of Public Safety

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · March 11, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11274254

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 11, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Private Civil Federal
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11274254

## Opinion text

Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 24-30754 FILED
____________ March 11, 2026
Lyle W. Cayce
Logan Guidry; Kenneth Cotton, III, Clerk

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

Louisiana Department of Public Safety; Jerry Goodwin,

Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:16-CV-1463
______________________________

Before Jones, Stewart, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
During the middle of the night, an inmate at a Louisiana prison used a
prison-issued padlock and tragically beat another inmate to death. The
victim inmate’s family sued the prison and its warden for constitutional and
state-law violations. The district court granted summary judgment,
dismissing the families’ federal and state claims. Because summary judgment
was proper, this court AFFIRMS.

_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 24-30754

I. Background
David Wade Correctional Center (“DWCC”), a Louisiana prison
located in Claiborne Parish, houses a total of 1,176 offenders—918 of whom
are classified as minimum or “medium” custody and 258 of whom are
classified as maximum custody. Like most prisons, theft of property is
common at DWCC, and those incidents of theft often lead to violence
between the inmates. DWCC thus allows inmates to have padlocks and
footlockers to secure their personal belongings.
Although it allows padlocks, DWCC does not have a specific written
policy on padlocks. But because it assigns inmates only two lockers to secure
their belongings, DWCC effectively limits the number of padlocks to two
per inmate: one that DWCC issues to the inmate, and another that the
inmate may purchase.
Since 2008, Warden Jerry Goodwin has helped oversee the
administration and operation of the prison while supervising its staff. As a
supervisor, Warden Goodwin knew that inmates occasionally used padlocks
to assault other inmates. From 2012 to January 2023, the prison experienced
16 inmate-on-inmate attacks that involved the use of padlocks, an average of
1.6 padlock incidents per year. With such a low number, Warden Goodwin
believed that issuing padlocks represented “a reasonable way” to help
inmates secure their belongings and “outweigh[ed] the risk that the padlock
will be used as a weapon.”
Unfortunately, Kenneth Cotton, Jr., an inmate at DWCC, was the
victim of a padlock attack in February 2016. Around midnight, while Cotton
was sleeping in his bed, Anthony Tellis—a fellow inmate who shared a
dormitory with Cotton—reached under his pillow and pulled out a state-
issued laundry bag with a padlock inside. At about 12:06 a.m., he stood up,

2
Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 24-30754

walked over to Cotton’s bed, and began beating Cotton, bashing Cotton’s
head multiple times with this makeshift weapon.
To stop the attack, Sergeant Jordan stepped onto the scene and found
Tellis still holding the padlock weapon. Other officers arrived to assist
Sergeant Jordan. Soon, Captain Finley and Sergeant Jordan restrained Tellis
and escorted him out of the dormitory.
At 12:11 a.m., only five minutes after the attack, Nurse Benson arrived
to provide medical assistance to Cotton, and within three minutes of arriving,
Nurse Benson transported Cotton to the North Infirmary. Around nine
minutes later, at 12:20 a.m., Nurse Benson noted that Cotton suffered head
injuries—namely, one “gaping” laceration to his left forehead with profuse
bleeding, and one “deep[,] gaping wound” behind his left ear. Because of his
injuries, at 12:30 a.m., Dr. Fuller ordered Cotton to be transported to the
University Health System Emergency Room.
But Pafford EMS did not receive that transfer request until 12:51 a.m.,
and while waiting on EMS to arrive, Cotton was in severe pain, confused,
vomiting, and lethargic. Eventually, at 1:14 a.m., Pafford EMS came and
transported Cotton to the hospital, finally arriving at the emergency room at
2:47 a.m. Eight days later, however, Cotton was deemed “clinically brain
dead,” removed from the ventilator, and pronounced dead at 8:15 p.m.
Cotton’s minor son and minor daughter—Kenneth M. Cotton III and
Logan Guidry, respectively—sued the Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections (“LPDSC”), Warden Goodwin, Tellis, and the
LPDSC’s insurers, 1 seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

_____________________
1
Default judgment was entered against Tellis; it turned out there were no insurers
for plaintiffs to sue.

3
Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 24-30754

Louisiana’s wrongful-death and survival-action statutes. 2 Relevant here,
Appellants alleged that the LPDSC and Warden Goodwin (among others)
failed to protect Cotton, failed to prohibit padlocks in the prison, failed to
train employees properly, and failed to render timely and adequate medical
care.
After Appellees removed to federal court, they moved for summary
judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, the lack of any constitutional
violation, and the corresponding lack of supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment,
dismissing the federal law claims with prejudice and the state law claims
without prejudice. Cotton’s family appealed.
II. Standard of Review
On appeal, this court reviews a district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo. Bluebonnet Hotel Ventures, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 754 F.3d 272, 275 (5th Cir. 2014). Summary judgment is proper “if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
A genuine issue of material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d
202 (1986). While “[t]he court is to consider evidence in the record in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of that party,” Bluebonnet, 754 F.3d at 276, summary

_____________________
2
Cotton’s mother originally brought this action, but once she learned that Cotton
had two minor children, she amended her complaint and substituted the children’s
mothers—Amy Nobre and Chastity Guidry—as proper plaintiffs. Nobre ex rel. K.M.C. v.
La. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 935 F.3d 437, 439 (5th Cir. 2019). This court found that
substitution to be proper. Id. at 438.

4
Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 24-30754

judgment is mandatory “against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial,” Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265
(1986).
A qualified-immunity defense changes the usual summary-judgment
burden of proof. Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010).
“Once an official pleads the defense, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff,
who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether
the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” Id.
III. Discussion
Appellants contend that the district court erroneously granted
summary judgment because genuine fact issues exist on whether LDPSC
and Warden Goodwin (1) failed to protect Cotton from the risk that another
inmate would attack him with a padlock, (2) failed to provide adequate
medical care to Cotton, and (3) failed to train medical staff or other
employees. The court disagrees for three reasons. First, because neither
LPDSC nor Warden Goodwin in his official capacity count as a “person”
within the meaning of Section 1983, claims against the prison and the Warden
in his official capacity fail. Second, Appellants failed to prove supervisory
liability against Warden Goodwin. Third, irrespective of supervisory
liability, plaintiffs proved no underlying constitutional violation. We discuss
each point briefly. 3
A.

_____________________
3
Beyond the federal-law claims, the district court dismissed Appellants’ state-law
claims without prejudice on the ground that it had already dismissed all the federal claims.
Appellants do not challenge this.

5
Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 24-30754

As a threshold matter, LDPSC and the Warden contend that
summary judgment was properly granted for the prison and Warden
Goodwin acting in his official capacity because neither one is a “person”
subject to liability under Section 1983. This is correct. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989).
This court has previously applied Will to departments of state government.
See, e.g., Cronen v. Tex. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 977 F.2d 934, 936 (5th Cir. 1992)
(Texas Department of Human Services is not a person under § 1983);
Washington v. Louisiana, 425 F.App’x 330, 333 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)
(“The State and [the Louisiana Department of Public Safety] are not persons
within the meaning of [§§ 1983 and 1985].”); Lumpkins v. Off. of Cmty. Dev.,
621 F.App’x 264, 268 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (“State agencies and state
officials acting in their official capacities are not ‘persons’ within the meaning
of the statute.”). Although the district court did not appear to address this
issue in dismissing Appellants’ claims, this court “may affirm summary
judgment ‘on any ground supported by the record, even if it is different from
that relied on by the district court.” Bluebonnet, 754 F.3d at 276 (quoting
Holtzclaw v. DSC Commc’ns Corp., 255 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2001)).
Dismissal would have been proper on this basis alone.
B.
The only remaining claims are posited against Warden Goodwin in his
individual capacity. But Warden Goodwin was not personally involved in the
incident, so the court must determine whether Warden Goodwin is otherwise
liable as a supervisor.
Generally, “Section 1983 does not create vicarious or respondeat
superior liability.” Evett v. DETNTFF, 330 F.3d 681, 689 (5th Cir. 2003)
(italics omitted) (internal citations omitted); Thompson v. Upshur County, 245
F.3d 447, 459 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[S]upervisory officials are not liable for the

6
Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 24-30754

actions of subordinates on any theory of vicarious liability.”). Thus, “[t]he
issue of whether a supervisor may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
requires a separate analysis.” Evett, 330 F.3d at 689.
Accordingly, a plaintiff may only prove supervisory liability for a non-
personally involved defendant by showing that “there is a ‘sufficient causal
connection’ between the supervisor’s conduct and the constitutional
violation.” Id. (quoting Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1987)).
Stated differently, “[a] supervisory official may be held liable . . . only if (1)
he affirmatively participates in the acts that cause the constitutional
deprivation, or (2) he implements unconstitutional policies that causally
result in the constitutional injury.” Porter v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 446 (5th Cir.
2011) (alteration in original) (internal citation omitted).
The record here says nothing about Warden Goodwin’s personal
involvement in the fatal attack on Cotton, the alleged delay in calling for an
ambulance, and the alleged failure to train other employees. No record
evidence suggests that Warden Goodwin’s conduct caused the incident. At
most, the record shows that Warden Goodwin talked with other staff about
the use of padlocks in the prison, but he believed that padlocks were
necessary to create a safer environment that lowered the risk of theft and
theft-related violence. That is not enough for supervisory liability, especially
because it fails to show that that “the misconduct of the subordinate [was]
affirmatively linked to the action or inaction” of Warden Goodwin. Southard
v. Tex. Bd. of Crim. Just., 114 F.3d 539, 550 (5th Cir. 1997). Appellants did
not produce evidence creating any material facts necessary to establish
Warden Goodwin’s participation or policies that caused injury to Guidry.
C.
Even if threshold issues about supervisory liability existed, Appellants
still had to demonstrate an underlying constitutional violation. They allege

7
Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 24-30754

failure-to-protect, failure-to-provide-adequate-medical-care, and failure-to-
train claims, but they must show that the claims rested on policies
implemented by Warden Goodwin. In addition, their supervisory claims
“must show that the supervisor act[ed], or fail[ed] to act, with deliberate
indifference to violations of others’ constitutional rights committed by their
subordinates.” Ford v. Anderson County, 102 F.4th 292, 321 (5th Cir. 2024)
(emphasis omitted) (quoting Porter, 659 F.3d at 446). Evidence is lacking to
imply that Warden Goodwin was deliberately indifferent.
1.
First, Appellants argue that Warden Goodwin failed to protect Cotton
because he was deliberately indifferent to the harms that padlocks presented
to prisoners at DWCC. We disagree.
“Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.”
Torres v. Livingston, 972 F.3d 660, 663 (5th Cir. 2020). “Prison officials are
not, [after all], expected to prevent all inmate-on-inmate violence.” Adames
v. Perez, 331 F.3d 508, 512 (5th Cir. 2003). Instead, a prison official is
“deliberately indifferent if he knows of an ‘excessive risk to inmate health or
safety’ and disregards that risk.” Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1979, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). “This knowledge
requirement is subjective: The official must both be aware of facts from which
the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,
and he must also draw the inference.” Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556,
561 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). A risk is “substantial”
when it is “objectively intolerable.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 846, 114 S.Ct. at
1983. For a failure-to-protect claim, the deliberate indifference element
requires the plaintiff to show that the defendants “(1) were aware of facts
from which an inference of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety
could be drawn and (2) that they actually drew an inference that such

8
Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 24-30754

potential for harm existed.” Damond v. City of Rayville, 127 F.4th 935, 938
(5th Cir. 2025) (per curiam) (quoting Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407–
08 (5th Cir. 2013)).
Both a substantial risk and deliberate indifference to that risk are
lacking here. Appellants reference several padlock attacks that took place in
the one-year period before Cotton’s attack. Those few incidents, however,
are not enough to establish an excessive risk. At least two circuits have
rejected the argument that issuing padlocks to prisoners subjects them to a
substantial risk of serious harm. See, e.g., Lakin v. Barnhart, 758 F.3d 66, 67
(1st Cir. 2014) (Souter, J., sitting by designation) (holding that the plaintiffs
“failed to raise a triable issue of substantial risk” that “inmates would use
padlocks issued to them by the [p]rison to assault fellow inmates”); Beaton v.
Tennis, 460 F.App’x 111, 114–15 (3d Cir. 2012) (holding that the plaintiff had
“not raised a genuine issue of fact that the prison’s padlock policy creates a
substantial or pervasive risk of harm to its inmates” when previous padlock
assaults took place “at a rate of 1 or 2 per year,” when padlocks were
“legimate[ly] use[d]” “to secure prisoners’ belongings,” and when
“inmates may use even the most harmless objects as weapons”).
The First Circuit case, Lakin v. Barnhart, is particularly apt. There,
the prison experienced roughly one or two padlock attacks annually, peaking
at six attacks in one year. 758 F.3d at 72. Justice Souter, who authored the
majority opinion in Farmer, summarized Farmer’s application as follows:
[N]ot every risk carries an inherent threat at a substantial level,
or of severity beyond the norms, and here the only record
evidence Lakin and Landry offer to suggest that the risk of
padlock assaults was “substantial” is the relatively low
frequency with which they occurred at the Prison during the
period leading up to the assaults they suffered. This, standing
alone, does not create a genuine issue of material fact as to

9
Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 24-30754

whether the risk was sufficiently substantial to support an
Eighth Amendment claim under Farmer.
Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 828, 114 S.Ct. at 1974).
Lakin is persuasive. After all, if six padlock attacks in one year
constitutes a “relatively low frequency” that cannot establish a sufficiently
substantial risk of harm, see id., then four attacks in one year certainly pose
no substantial risk under Farmer.
Appellants also assert that the warden was deliberately indifferent
because he “fail[ed] to address a 1-year spike in padlock attacks,” likely failed
to “appropriately weigh” the benefit of padlocks against “the risk to
offenders,” and “failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish . . . that a
reasoned and deliberative process resulted in a decision to allow the
continued use of padlocks.” In essence, his alleged lack of a “reasoned and
deliberate response” to the padlock attacks is enough to establish deliberate
indifference.
Appellants are mistaken. In general, “prison officials who act
reasonably cannot be found liable under the [Eighth Amendment].” Farmer,
511 U.S. at 845, 114 S.Ct. at 1983; see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89,
107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (“[W]hen a prison regulation
impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”). Thus, the Supreme
Court recognized that “deference must be given to the officials in charge of
the jail unless there is ‘substantial evidence’ demonstrating their response”
was exaggerated or otherwise unreasonable. Florence v. Bd. of Chosen
Freeholders of Cnty. of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318, 330, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 1518, 182
L.Ed.2d 566 (2012) (quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 584–85, 104
S.Ct. 3227, 3231–32, 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984)).

10
Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 24-30754

The record here is replete with evidence of Warden Goodwin’s
reasonable belief that issuing padlocks represented “a reasonable way” to
help inmates secure their belongings and “outweigh[ed] the risk that the
padlock will be used as a weapon.” And because “[t]heft of property of the
offenders is a common occurrence, and incidents of theft often lead to
violence between the offenders,” he stated in his affidavit that “issuing
padlocks is a reasonable means of controlling theft and reducing violent
confrontations among offenders.” Warden Goodwin explained that allowing
inmates to use padlocks to secure their property is common in federal and
state penal institutions, including those of Louisiana. He warned in
deposition that, if padlocks are taken away, “violence and fights and injuries
and other things are going to be significantly higher if you just allow random
theft.” Appellees’ expert added that DWCC complied with the American
Correctional Association’s (“ACA”) accreditation process and that
DWCC’s policy was “the type of policy generally seen within the
enforcement and corrections profession” and was “similar to the
requirements” that the ACA outlined.
There is no record evidence to the contrary. The failure-to-protect
claim fails.
2.
Second, Appellants contend that DWCC and its staff were
deliberately indifferent to Cotton’s medical needs by delaying a transfer to
emergency care. This claim has nothing to do with Warden Goodwin, who
had no contact with the events surrounding Cotton’s injury or the treatment
the inmate received. Because of his non-involvement, this court need not
opine about whether the conduct of prison staff could be deemed so
constitutionally wanting as to constitute “deliberate indifference to a
prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 239

11
Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 24-30754

F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105–06,
97 S.Ct. 285, 291–92, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). The Appellees marshalled a
large amount of impressive evidence to challenge this claim, but Appellants
simply failed to sue the individuals who ministered to Cotton and saw that he
got to the hospital reasonably promptly. The district court correctly granted
summary judgment on Appellants’ inadequate medical-care claim.
3.
Appellants’ final contention is that genuine fact issues exist as to
whether Warden Goodwin failed to train prison staff properly. According to
Appellants, Warden Goodwin’s failure to train is evidenced by the facts that
DWCC’s medical staff waited twenty-two minutes before calling for an
ambulance and that Warden Goodwin lacked a “deliberate and reasoned
policy” in response to the “1-year spike in padlock attacks.”
Assuming arguendo that the failure-to-train issue is not forfeited for
inadequate briefing, it still collapses on the merits. For a failure-to-train
claim, Appellants must show that: (1) Warden Goodwin failed to train
DWCC staff properly; (2) that failure caused a violation of Cotton’s rights;
and (3) Warden Goodwin’s failure constituted deliberate indifference. Jason
v. Tanner, 938 F.3d 191, 196 (5th Cir. 2019).
Appellants fall far short of meeting these criteria. As detailed above,
Appellants failed to adduce any evidence that Warden Goodwin was
personally responsible for Cotton’s injuries or that his alleged failure to train
caused Cotton’s injuries. They offered no evidence about DWCC’s
policies, staff training, or lack thereof. Instead, they assert conclusionally
that the Appellees’ expert “fail[ed] to address” these issues. Not only does
that assertion misplace the burden of proof, but it is incorrect because the
expert did briefly discuss DWCC’s policies and found that DWCC’s
“handling of this situation [was] well within the generally accepted

12
Case: 24-30754 Document: 50-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 24-30754

guidelines of the law enforcement and corrections profession” and that the
“officer responded in a manner [that was] consistent with proper DWCC
policy and training.” As a result, Appellants have not “affirmatively linked”
any prison error to any action or inaction of Warden Goodwin. Southard, 114
F.3d at 550.
Nor do Appellants create a fact issue about the deliberate-indifference
element of failure-to-train liability. For this requirement, “[a] pattern of
similar constitutional violations by untrained employees is ‘ordinarily
necessary.’” Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 62, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 1360, 179
L.Ed.2d 417 (2011) (quoting Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown,
520 U.S. 397, 409, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 1391, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997)). Indeed, a
plaintiff must show that the constitutional violation was “highly predictable”
or “so predictable that failing to train the prosecutors amounted to conscious
disregard.” Id. at 71, 131 S.Ct. at 1365 (emphasis in original). Therefore, “the
inadequacy of training must be obvious and obviously likely to result in a
constitutional violation.” Thompson, 245 F.3d at 459 (citing City of Canton v.
Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 n.10, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 1205 n.10, 103 L.Ed.2d 412
(1989)). After all, “[w]ithout notice that a course of training is deficient in a
particular respect, decisionmakers can hardly be said to have deliberately
chosen a training program that will cause violations of constitutional rights.”
Connick, 563 U.S. at 71, 131 S.Ct. at 1365.
Appellants do not show any pattern of constitutional violations. Nor
have they explained how DWCC’s training was deficient “in a particular
respect,” see id., whether related to medical care or allowing prisoners to use
padlocks. Accordingly, the district court rightly dismissed the failure-to-
train claim.
IV. Conclusion
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

13

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11274254. Public record. Not legal advice.