Christopher Torres v. Brad Livingston

Summary

Prisoner's § 1983 Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff did not allege deliberate indifference because the officer was unaware of any risk of attack, and the plaintiff himself described the inmate as "harmless." The court also affirmed denial of a Rule 59(e) motion, finding that an inmate affidavit claiming frequent food-slot attacks was not credible and did not show defendants' awareness of a specific danger. Without an underlying constitutional violation, failure-to-train and supervisory claims also fail.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to allege that the defendant prison official acted with deliberate indifference. Torres did not plead facts showing that Endsley knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Torres.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion because the newly discovered evidence (affidavit of fellow inmate claiming to have witnessed many food-slot attacks) was not credible and did not demonstrate that the defendants were aware of a specific danger to Torres.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in dismissing the §1983 claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) based on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Torres's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.

Disposition

affirmed