Case: 21-50272 Document: 00516264242 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-50272
FILED
Summary Calendar April 1, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Raymond E. Lumsden, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division; Senior Warden Cynthia
Lofton; Assistant Warden Chimdi Akwitti; Assistant
Warden Nick Clayton; Major Beau Smith; Jessica Riley;
H. M. Pederson,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:20-CV-630
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50272 Document: 00516264242 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
No. 21-50272
Raymond E. Lumsden, Texas prisoner # 2109472, filed a pro se 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action against the director of the Correctional Institutions
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, as well as several
wardens, a major, and two grievance coordinators at the prison. In his
complaint, Lumsden alleged that prison conditions on the Hughes Unit
violated the Eighth Amendment. He further alleged that there was a critical
staffing shortage at the prison and that the defendants had conspired to
retaliate against him.
On appeal, Lumsden challenges the district court’s summary
judgment dismissal of his action concerning his claims of unconstitutional
conditions of confinement and a staffing shortage. His failure to articulate
any argument concerning the district court’s rejection of his retaliation claim
results in abandonment of the issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-
25 (5th Cir. 1993).
A qualified immunity defense alters the typical summary judgment
burden of proof. Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010). In
such cases, once the defense is pleaded, “the burden then shifts to the
plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as
to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly
established law.” Id. To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, a
plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional
right and that the right was clearly established when the violation occurred.
Williams v. City of Cleveland, 736 F.3d 684, 688 (5th Cir. 2013). Because
Lumsden did not present competent summary judgment evidence showing a
constitutional violation, he failed to rebut the qualified immunity defense.
See id.; Brown, 623 F.3d at 253; see also Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 595 (5th
Cir. 2015); King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2