Luna v. Davis, 59 F.4th 713

Luna, a Texas inmate, sued TDCJ officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after a housing reassignment and a same-day assault on January 7, 2020.
He had earlier reported threats and sexual harassment in boot-camp housing (May–Aug 2019) and was moved to the main building after a UCC housing decision.
On Jan. 7, 2020, Ar’Lisa Simon-Hastings authorized Luna’s transfer back to boot-camp housing; Luna was assaulted that day and alleges Simon‑Hastings told him afterward that the assault would ‘teach you a lesson about going over my head with housing moves.’
Defendants removed the case to federal court; the district court dismissed most claims but allowed Luna’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect and First Amendment retaliation claims against Simon‑Hastings to proceed.
The district court granted Simon‑Hastings summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, finding no genuine dispute she knew of a substantial risk to Luna’s safety; Luna appealed.
The Fifth Circuit reversed in part (Eighth Amendment), holding Luna’s allegations create a genuine factual dispute about deliberate indifference, affirmed dismissal of the First Amendment claim as abandoned on appeal, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eighth Amendment – failure to protect (deliberate indifference)	Luna: prior threats, UCC transfer history, immediate assault after Jan. 7 transfer, and Simon‑Hastings’ alleged statement show she knew of and disregarded a substantial risk.	Simon‑Hastings: earlier investigation was unsubstantiated; transfer was unintentional; later corrective note shows no deliberate indifference.	Reversed in part: Court held Luna’s specific allegations (including the alleged statement plus prior threats and injury) are not conclusory and create a genuine dispute on deliberate indifference; remanded.
Qualified immunity as to Eighth Amendment claim	Luna: produced evidence raising a fact issue sufficient to rebut immunity (knowledge + motive).	Simon‑Hastings: entitled to immunity because no clearly established constitutional violation.	Not decided: Court found a genuine factual dispute but did not resolve whether the law was clearly established; remanded for further proceedings.
First Amendment – retaliation	Luna: alleged retaliation for seeking housing transfer (raised below).	Simon‑Hastings: summary judgment dismissal proper.	Affirmed: Luna did not press this claim on appeal, so the argument was abandoned and the dismissal stands.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (prison officials’ duty to protect prisoners from violence by other prisoners)
Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004) (failure-to-protect analysis and evaluating nonconclusory prisoner allegations)
Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2010) (qualified immunity burden-shifting at summary judgment)
Guzman v. Allstate Assurance Co., 18 F.4th 157 (5th Cir. 2021) (standards for self‑serving affidavits at summary judgment)
In re Deepwater Horizon, 48 F.4th 378 (5th Cir. 2022) (summary judgment and admissibility of declarations)
Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Brown v. City of Houston, 337 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 2003) (unsupported speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (court of review should not reach first‑view questions)
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned)