United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 29, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-41430
Summary Calendar
RANDLE JACKSON, III
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
BRIAN G COLLINS, Correctional Sergeant at Telford Unit;
RODNEY L COOPER, Warden at Telford Unit; GARY L GRAY,
Correctional Captain at Telford Unit; BRIAN W RODEEN;
DAVID W SMITH, Correctional Sergeant at Telford, Individually;
FLOYD W WEATHERLY, Correctional Officer at Telford, Individually
and in official capacity
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:01-CV-260
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Randle Jackson, III, Texas prisoner No. 735701, has appealed
the district court’s grant of summary judgment and dismissal with
prejudice of a civil rights complaint alleging Eighth Amendment
violations and challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding as
violative of principles of due process. We review the district
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-41430
-2-
court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Melton v. Teachers
Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am., 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Jackson’s sworn
testimony at a hearing before a magistrate judge establishes that
there are disputed material facts concerning Jackson’s claims
that Sergeants Smith, Sergeant Collins, and Officer Weatherly
subjected Jackson to excessive force. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 602-
03 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment as to
those defendants. Because the district court dismissed Jackson’s
claims that Warden Cooper and Assistant Warden Rodeen failed to
protect Jackson based on the court’s determination that Jackson
was a not victim of excessive force, we vacate the dismissal of
Jackson’s Eighth Amendment claims against those defendants.
Jackson’s claims concerning the procedures used at a prison
disciplinary hearing are barred under the doctrine of Heck v.
Humphrey** because they implicate the validity of his
disciplinary conviction. We therefore affirm the entry of
summary judgment with regard to Jackson’s claims that prison
disciplinary proceeding violated principles of due process.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
**
512 U.S. 477 (1994).