William White v. Ronald Fox, 470 F. App'x 214

White, a Texas prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging failure-to-protect and due process violations.
He claimed Major Fox labeled him a snitch and told Barnes, a Michael Unit inmate, causing him to be targeted.
White was transferred from Michael Unit to Darrington Unit and allegedly assaulted after the snitch designation became known.
He also challenged a disciplinary proceeding against Captain Taylor, alleging notice, evidence, and witness issues and falsified records.
The district court granted summary judgment to Captain Taylor and Major Fox; on appeal, this court reversed in part and remanded for the Fox claim.
On remand, the magistrate judge again granted Taylor and Fox summary judgment; the Fifth Circuit affirmed Taylor and remanded Fox for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fox's alleged snitch designation breached Eighth Amendment safety	White asserts Fox caused a substantial risk by informing inmates he was a snitch.	Fox did not designate White as a snitch and had no knowledge of a safety risk to White.	Remanded/in part:** Fox claim viable for trial; needs fact-finder evaluation.
Whether Taylor’s procedures violated due process in the disciplinary hearing	White argues the hearing record was altered and he lacked notice and witnesses.	Taylor provided a written statement of evidence; additions were not new and did not violate due process.	Affirmed; Taylor entitled to summary judgment on due process claim.
Whether evidence from Barnes and Frazier creates a genuine dispute on Fox claim	Barnes’ and Frazier’s affidavits contradict Fox’s denial and show a causal link to the assault.	Barnes and Frazier affidavits are hearsay or not properly credited; no triable issue.	Remanded for further fact-finding; material disputes exist.

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2005) (due process right to a written statement and evidentiary review in confinement decisions)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference standard for inmate safety)
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (state bears responsibility when it restrains liberty and fails to provide safety)
Adames v. Perez, 331 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. 2003) (circumstantial proof of deliberate indifference in failure-to-protect cases)
Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1985) (limits on how due process explains witness testimony in disciplinary proceedings)
Crowe v. Henry, 115 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 1997) (avoidance of credibility determinations at summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine disputes require trial-worthy evidence)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (prisoners’ right to adequate medical care and humane conditions)