Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:After midnight on May 27, 2000, David Peralez and George White repeatedly stabbed Adam Longoria, a fellow prisoner at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s (TDCJ) Telford Unit. The vicious stabbing happening when Longoria, Peralez and White were housed near one another in a lockdown unit (or pod) because of recent hostilities that had broken out between rival gangs. Longoria claims he told a corrections officer that Peralez and White were in the showers and wanted to kill him. The officer allegedly assured Longoria that if anything happened he would be protected. The officer then handcuffed him and removed him from the cell. As Longoria and the officer walked along the corridor, Peralez and White emerged from the showers armed with shanks and began running toward them. Longoria fled. Although unarmed, Rogers initially attempted to stand between Longoria and his attackers but was pushed aside as they chased Longoria. Two other officers nearby ran away to alert other guards and obtain weapons and tear gas. Peralez and White chased Longoria through the now-sealed pod, tackled him and began stabbing him in the chest and neck. Longoria finally broke free and fled to the first-floor common area where he collapsed and was met by arriving officers. He was seriously injured. Peralez and White likely targeted Longoria because he had become a jailhouse informant. On several occasions in the months preceding the attack, Longoria had provided gang-related information during meetings with investigators. On May 26, 2000 the day of the attack Longoria approached informed a prison guard that the Texas Syndicate gang was planning to murder him. Longoria requested a life-endangerment investigation, immediate removal from lockdown and reassignment to protective housing. Because of the minimal exposure to other inmates that Longoria would have on lockdown status, another prison official determined that immediate housing reassignment was not necessary and that officials would later undertake a life-endangerment investigation before any change in Longoria’s assignment. Early the next morning, the attack occurred. Longoria brought suit under 42 U.S.C. �1983 against the state of Texas, TDCJ and eight prison officers. Narrowing Longoria’s claims to those of failure to protect and state-created danger, the district court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. All of the officers appealed. HOLDING:Reversed in part, dismissed in part. It is well established, the court stated, that prison officials have a constitutional duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of their fellow inmates. To prevail in such a �1983 claim, the court stated, an inmate “must show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm” and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s safety. The district court, the court stated, predicated its denial of summary judgment on the existence of disputed material facts, including the authenticity of the May 22 letter, the amount of notice given by Longoria to the responsible prison officials, their responses to this notice and the events on the morning of the attack. Because the standard for liability requires an evaluation of both subjective knowledge and objective reasonableness, the court stated that district court erred in using these factual disputes as a blanket justification for denial of summary judgment to the defendants as a class, without further considering their individual roles in the disputed incidents. Because the district court did not explain with sufficient particularity the factual basis justifying a denial of qualified immunity, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals examined the record to determine whether, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Longoria, each defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. The court held that most of the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Because material fact issues existed as to two officials regarding their alleged deliberate indifference to Longoria’s plight, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear their interlocutory appeals and dismissed their appeals. OPINION:Jones, C.J.; Jones, C.J., and Reavley and Prado, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.