The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________
No. 95-20148
______________
KEITH B. PAYNE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER SPEER; RAUL CISNEROS,
Defendants,
LEROY BAILEY; DAVID JANSA; WILLIAM A. BOOTHE; CAREY S. STAPLES;
CHARLES D. GODWIN; JERRY R. PETERSON, Warden; WAYNE SCOTT,
Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional
Division,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(CA-H-93-1183)
_________________________________________________________________
December 8, 1995
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
This is a civil rights suit filed by Plaintiff-Appellee Keith
B. Payne ("Payne") arising from his assertion that in July 1992,
while Payne was incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
Justice-Institutional Division ("TDCJ-ID"), Defendants Christopher
Speer ("Speer") and Raul Cisneros ("Cisneros"), prison officers at
TDCJ-ID, used excessive physical force against Payne without
provocation which resulted in Payne sustaining physical and
emotional injuries, and refused to supply Payne with the required
procedures after the incident.1 In addition, Payne asserts that
Defendants-Appellants Leroy Bailey ("Bailey"), a sergeant at TDCJ-
ID, and David Jansa ("Jansa"), a lieutenant at TDCJ-ID, witnessed
the incident and failed to make sure proper procedures were carried
out afterwards. The remaining Defendants-Appellants William A.
Boothe ("Boothe"), Carey S. Staples ("Staples"), Charles D. Godwin
("Godwin"), Jerry R. Peterson ("Peterson") and Wayne Scott
("Scott"), all supervisors at TDCJ-ID, are implicated by Payne as
having been aware of the excessive force incident and failing to
make sure proper procedures were carried out.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting
qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion without
explanation.2 On appeal, Defendants-Appellants argue that Payne
has failed to establish that they violated his constitutional
rights.3 Our review of the district court's denial of a motion for
summary judgment is de novo. Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297,
1
Specifically, Payne claims Speer and Cisneros refused to
provide an inmate incident information and participant form, to
provide a standard witness form for use of force, to take photos
of Payne's injuries and to file an inmate disciplinary report.
2
Payne failed to file a response to the summary judgment
motion, and has not filed a response brief in these proceedings.
3
Speer and Cisneros did not appeal.
2
1301 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (internal citations omitted).
None of Defendants-Appellants used physical force against
Payne, much less excessive force. Therefore, we find that Payne
has failed to establish that Defendants-Appellants violated his
Eighth Amendment right.
Additionally, to the extent that Payne might seek to hold
Defendants-Appellants Scott, Peterson, Godwin, Staples and Boothe
liable due to their supervisory responsibilities at TDCJ-ID, we
find that Payne has failed to set forth specific facts showing a
causal connection between their actions and the constitutional
violations alleged. See Lozano v. Smith, 718 F.2d 756, 768 (5th
Cir. 1983).
As for Defendants-Appellants Jansa and Bailey, we find that
even if we were to assume they violated Payne's constitutional
rights by witnessing the alleged excessive use of force by Speer
and Cisneros and by failing to ensure that proper procedures were
followed, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because
Payne has failed to make a showing of "deliberate indifference."
See Farmer v. Brennan, ___U.S.___, 114 S.ct. 1970, 1977, 128
L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).
For the reasons stated above, we REVERSE the district court's
order denying qualified immunity to Scott, Peterson, Godwin,
Staples, Boothe, Jansa and Bailey.
3