Castro v. Wallace

Case: 24-50379 Document: 38-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50379 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ January 7, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce Hubert Edward Castro, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Warden Darren Wallace, TDCJ Hughes Unit, in his Individual and Official Capacity; Assistant Warden Toby Powell, TDCJ Hughes Unit, in his Individual and Official Capacity; Chimdi Akwitti; Beverly Dawn Smith; Captain Annette Martinez, TDCJ Hughes Unit, in her Individual and Official Capacity; Counsel Substitute K. Brase, TDCJ Hughes Unit, in his Individual and Official Capacity; Counsel Substitute Jane Doe #2, TDCJ Hughes Unit, in her Individual and Official Capacity; Counsel Substitute Jane Doe #3, TDCJ Hughes Unit, in her Individual and Official Capacity; Director’s Review Committee - Huntsville, Individual and Official Capacity; Nichole McEntire; Diana Duff; Veronyka Kiss,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:20-CV-1116 ______________________________

Before Richman, Douglas, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. *2 Case: 24-50379 Document: 38-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2025

No. 24-50379

Per Curiam: * Hubert Edward Castro, Texas prisoner number 1049656, appeals the summary judgment dismissal of the remaining claim in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint on the ground of qualified immunity. He argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claim that the defendants violated his constitutional rights under the First Amendment by restricting contact with his wife following a disciplinary conviction. Even if there are factual disputes in the record, the disputed facts are not material. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Given the undisputed evidence showing the procedural reason for dismissing Castro’s disciplinary conviction and the deference owed to the professional expertise of corrections officials in addressing security issues, see Mayfield v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 529 F.3d 599, 611 (5th Cir. 2008), it was not error for the district court to conclude that there was no genuine dispute that restricting Castro’s contact with his wife was reasonably necessary to serve legitimate penological interests and to grant summary judgment dismissal on the ground of qualified immunity, see Luna v. Davis, 59 F.4th 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2023) (per curiam); Lewis v. Sec’y of Pub. Safety & Corr., 870 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2017); Taita Chem. Co. v. Westlake Styrene Corp., 246 F.3d 377, 385 (5th Cir. 2001). AFFIRMED.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.