Legate v. Livingston, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9106

James Legate, a Texas state prisoner and Native American, alleged he contracted Hepatitis C while participating in communal pipe-smoking ceremonies at a TDCJ facility, practices he attended from 2002 until 2009.
TDCJ policy initially allowed communal pipe use; in 2011 TDCJ revised policy prohibiting communal pipe smoking as a health risk.
Legate sued TDCJ Executive Director Brad Livingston under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for failing to protect him from communicable disease risk and relying in part on a 1996 Chaplaincy Manual provision about not sharing pipes.
The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) for failing to state a claim, holding Legate voluntarily participated and was capable of protecting his own welfare.
Legate sought leave to amend to add a substantive due-process failure-to-warn claim and unidentified TDCJ policymakers as defendants; the district court denied leave as futile and for failure to identify additional defendants.
Legate appealed; the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal and denial of leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TDCJ violated Eighth Amendment by failing to protect Legate from contracting Hepatitis C during communal pipe ceremonies	Legate: Livingston was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm by permitting communal pipe use despite health risks (citing chaplaincy manual)	Livingston/TDCJ: Participation was voluntary; Legate could exercise ordinary responsibility for his safety, so no Eighth Amendment violation	Court: Affirmed dismissal — voluntary participation bars Eighth Amendment claim absent compulsion or incapacity to protect oneself
Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend to add a substantive due-process failure-to-warn claim and unnamed TDCJ policymakers	Legate: Requested leave to add a due-process claim (failure to warn) and additional defendants	Livingston/TDCJ: Amendment would be futile; plaintiff failed to identify defendants or allege deliberate action depriving life, liberty, or property	Court: Affirmed — denial not an abuse of discretion because amendment would be futile and defendants were unidentified

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (Eighth Amendment protects against unreasonable risks to future health)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for prison conditions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (prisoner must be incapacitated from exercising ordinary responsibility to trigger certain protections)
Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2006) (Eighth Amendment standards applied in Fifth Circuit)
Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for dismissals under § 1915 and § 1915A)
Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion review for denial of leave to amend; futility standard)
LynLea Travel Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 283 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2002) (policy favoring leave to amend)
Chitimacha Tribe of La. v. Harry L. Laws Co., 690 F.2d 1157 (5th Cir. 1982) (interpretation of Rule 15 leave-to-amend policy)
Christopher v. Buss, 384 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2004) (persuasive authority that voluntary inmate conduct does not give rise to Eighth Amendment claim)
Haas v. Weiner, 765 F.2d 123 (8th Cir. 1985) (voluntary inmate conduct precludes Eighth Amendment liability)