Keeter v. Sadlar

── Keeter v. Sadlar ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 14, 2026 Category: Prisoner w/ out Counsel Case: 25-10539 Document: 44-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-10539 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ April 14, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Jackie Russell Keeter, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Karla Sadlar, Major of Operations, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:20-CV-66 ______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jackie Russell Keeter, Texas prisoner # 935295, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against eight Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) employees, including Major Karla Sadler. Keeter alleged that Keeter was housed with and sexually assaulted by a fellow inmate, Victor Robinson. Other defendants were dismissed from the case and Sadler moved _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-10539 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 No. 25-10539 for summary judgment. She did not dispute that the sexual assault occurred. However, Sadler asserted that Keeter had not shown that she was deliberately indifferent to Keeter’s safety and that she was not personally involved in the decision to house Keeter with the cellmate. The district court appointed counsel to Keeter below and, ultimately, granted Sadler’s motion for summary judgment motion and dismissed Keeter’s claims. Generally, we review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). However, the parties agree that, because Keeter did not file objections to the magistrate judge’s report despite receiving notice of the consequences of failing to do so, our review is for plain error. See Salts v. Epps, 676 F.3d 468, 474 (5th Cir. 2012); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c). “If the movant meets the initial burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific facts indicating a genuine issue for trial.” Reyes v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 140 F.4th 279, 284 (5th Cir. 2025) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Eighth Amendment prohibits the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Accordingly, “prison officials have a constitutional duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of their fellow inmates.” Longoria v. Texas, 473 F.3d 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2006). That duty requires officials to “take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state of claim of failure to protect, a prisoner must show that (1) the p