Simmons v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 697 F. App'x 345

Plaintiff Edward Simmons, a Louisiana prisoner, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for deliberate indifference to medical needs, retaliation, and denial of a disciplinary hearing after placement in administrative segregation.
Simmons moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal; the district court denied IFP and certified the appeal as not taken in good faith.
Simmons did not challenge the dismissal of official-capacity claims, the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, or denial of his cross-motion for summary judgment.
Administrative Remedy Procedure (ARP) LSP-2014-1734 was not exhausted, but two other ARPs addressing the events were exhausted; Simmons thus failed to show a nonfrivolous exhaustion issue.
Defendants raised qualified immunity via a supported summary-judgment motion; Simmons offered unsworn allegations that the court found insufficient to create a genuine dispute about deliberate indifference or substantial harm from a <9-hour delay or diet deviations.
The court found Simmons’s retaliation claims conclusory and held that placement in administrative segregation did not implicate a protected liberty interest, so due-process review was unnecessary. The appeal was dismissed as frivolous and Simmons was warned this counts as a § 1915(g) strike.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IFP denial and certification of bad-faith appeal was erroneous	Simmons contended the appeal could proceed IFP	District court certified appeal not in good faith; IFP denial proper	IFP motion denied; appeal dismissed as frivolous
Whether Simmons exhausted administrative remedies	Simmons argued ARP exhaustion was adequate	Defendants pointed to unexhausted ARP LSP-2014-1734; other ARPs exhausted	No nonfrivolous exhaustion issue; earlier ARPs addressed events so exhaustion not cured by LSP-2014-1734 failure
Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs (qualified immunity)	Simmons claimed medical delay and diet deviations amounted to deliberate indifference	Defendants invoked qualified immunity and offered summary-judgment evidence; delay <9 hours and no substantial harm	Simmons failed to raise competent evidence to defeat summary judgment; no genuine material fact on deliberate indifference
Whether Simmons’ retaliation and due-process claims precluded summary judgment	Simmons alleged retaliation for requesting care and filing grievances; claimed due process violation from segregation without hearing	Defendants argued allegations were conclusory and segregation did not implicate a protected liberty interest	Retaliation claims deemed conclusory and insufficient; no protected liberty interest in segregation so no due-process inquiry required

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (IFP appeal-challenge to district court certification)
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (issues not briefed are abandoned)
Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2012) (exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a))
Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2010) (burden shifts after defendants assert qualified immunity at summary judgment)
Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1991) (qualified-immunity burden at summary judgment)
Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, 564 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2009) (unsworn allegations insufficient as summary-judgment evidence)
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 1999) (retaliation claim standards)
Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161 (5th Cir. 1995) (retaliation evidence requirements)
Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 1995) (administrative segregation and liberty interest)
Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1989) (no due-process obligation absent protected liberty interest)
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (standard for frivolous appeals)
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (dismissal as frivolous counts as a § 1915(g) strike)