“When the Heat Itself Cries Out”
The Fifth Circuit’s Refined Standard for Deliberate Indifference to Extreme Temperatures in Texas Prisons – Commentary on Coones v. Cogburn (5th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

The Fifth Circuit’s per curiam decision in Coones v. Cogburn, No. 24-10777 (5th Cir. 2025), revisits an increasingly lethal problem: the soaring, un-air-conditioned temperatures inside many Texas prisons. Jace Coones—a young asthmatic prisoner—died after days of 100-plus degree heat and allegedly cursory medical responses. His mother, Cynthia Coones, sued a constellation of prison officials, nurses, doctors, Texas governmental entities, and a county hospital district, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Texas medical-malpractice law.

The district court dismissed the entire action, but the Fifth Circuit partly revived it. Crucially, the appellate court:

• Reiterated that extreme heat may by itself constitute an objectively serious deprivation under the Eighth Amendment;
• Clarified that the open and obvious nature of Texas heat, coupled with prior heat-death litigation, can supply the subjective “deliberate indifference” element—even for high-level supervisors;
• Held that minimal or temporary palliative measures (e.g., letting an inmate rest briefly on a gurney) do not necessarily defeat an Eighth Amendment claim;
• Delineated pleading requirements for individual-capacity claims, ADA failure-to-accommodate theories, and Texas Tort Claims Act malpractice suits.

2. Summary of the Judgment

On de novo review of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the Fifth Circuit:

• Reversed dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claims against TDCJ Executive Director Bryan Collier, Warden Jody Hefner, RN Beverly Cogburn, and LVN Christi Baker;
• Affirmed dismissal of Eighth Amendment claims against six additional care providers and all entity defendants (Texas, TDCJ, Texas Tech University, Mitchell County, and Mitchell County Hospital District);
• Affirmed dismissal of the ADA claims for failure to allege that the entities understood the disability-related limitations at issue; and
• Affirmed dismissal of state-law malpractice claims, finding sovereign or governmental immunity or pleading deficiencies.

The case is remanded for discovery and further proceedings against the four remaining individual defendants.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) – The canonical deliberate-indifference framework (objective seriousness + subjective recklessness). Coones operationalises both prongs for heat-exposure cases.
• Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004) – Recognised extreme heat and lack of fans/ice/daily showers as unconstitutional; used to define the “serious deprivation” element.
• Yates v. Collier, 868 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2017) – Held that Texas prison officials were on notice of heat risks; Coones treats this notice as continuing and amplifying.
• Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2015) – Cemented prisoners’ right to “adequate heat remediation”; cited for temperature thresholds and remedial expectations.
• Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) – Pleading-standard rubric; applied strictly to weed out conclusory allegations against the “Remaining Care-Providing Defendants.”
• Austin v. Johnson, 328 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2003) & Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459 (5th Cir. 2006) – Early heat-and-medical-care precedents establishing that short delays or cursory aid in a heat emergency can constitute deliberate indifference; pivotal to denying qualified immunity to the two nurses.
• Texas Tort Claims Act trio (Garza v. Harrison, 574 S.W.3d 389; Martinez v. Val Verde Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 140 S.W.3d 370; Sherwinski v. Peterson, 98 F.3d 849) – Groundwork for sovereign-immunity analysis on malpractice counts.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. The Objective Prong: Temperatures in the “90s and 100s,” lack of fans, ice, or extra showers, and a medically vulnerable inmate collectively met the threshold for a “sufficiently serious” deprivation under Farmer.
   “It is well-established in our circuit that the Eighth Amendment guarantees inmates a right to be free from exposure to extremely dangerous temperatures ….”
2. The Subjective Prong – Knowledge & Disregard:
   • Open & Obvious Risk. Texas summers are notoriously brutal; decades of litigation (e.g., Webb, Valigura) made the hazard—especially lethal to asthmatics—“undeniable” to supervisors.
   • Specific Encounters. Nurse Cogburn recorded tachycardia (pulse 103) and tachypnea (respiration 98)—clinical red flags—but still returned Coones to his sweltering cell. Nurse Baker observed him naked, non-verbal, motionless among four untouched trays—yet offered only verbal encouragement.
   • Insufficiency of Policies. The district court’s reliance on TDCJ’s “Enhanced Heat Protocols” was premature; policies do not immunise officials if implementation is spotty or ineffective.
3. Qualified Immunity Denied. Past cases made it “clearly established” that (a) failing to provide heat mitigation constitutes a violation and (b) superficial or delayed medical responses in a heat crisis cross the constitutional line.
4. ADA Pleading Failure. The panel reiterated the tri-element Neely/Valentine test and held that merely complaining of heat, without linking it to asthma/allergies or requesting an accommodation, is insufficient.
5. State-Law Malpractice and Sovereign Immunity. Because Texas has not waived immunity in federal court, and the Texas Tort Claims Act channels suits through the governmental unit (not individual employees), the malpractice counts properly failed.

3.3 Expected Impact

Coones may reverberate across multiple dimensions:

1. Litigation Strategy – Plaintiffs now have a blueprint for pleading deliberate-indifference claims premised on heat: emphasise prior statewide heat-death data, document vital signs, and spotlight half-measures as evidence of “wanton disregard.”
2. Supervisory Liability – The ruling underscores that high-level officials cannot hide behind written protocols if implementation falters. Discovery into policy gaps and funding decisions will be fair game on remand.
3. Qualified Immunity Scope – By stripping immunity at the pleadings stage, the case signals that medical personnel may face trial when serious symptoms are ignored, even if they provide token assistance.
4. Prison-Design Remediation – TDCJ and county jail systems will feel pressure to retrofit cooling systems or, at minimum, enforce robust fan/ice/shower regimens, to pre-empt liability.
5. Climate-Change Jurisprudence – As extreme-heat days increase, the decision joins a growing set of federal opinions recognising climate-exacerbated conditions as constitutional concerns.
6. ADA Claim-Drafting – The affirmed dismissal quietly warns counsel that disability-related claims must tie symptoms, requests, and denials together with specificity.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Below is a quick primer on the key legal doctrines invoked:

• Deliberate Indifference – More culpable than negligence, less than intentional cruelty. Officials “recklessly disregard” a known, substantial risk.
• Qualified Immunity – Shields officials from damages unless they violated “clearly established” law. If courts have previously condemned similar conduct, immunity evaporates.
• “Open and Obvious” Risk – A hazard so blatant that knowledge can be inferred (e.g., triple-digit heat felt by everyone on site).
• Failure-to-Accommodate (ADA) – Unlike disparate-treatment discrimination, this theory hinges on a covered entity’s refusal to adjust rules or environments once it understands disability-linked limitations.
• Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) – Generally waives governmental immunity in state court (not federal) for certain torts, but only against the governmental unit, not the employee individually.

5. Conclusion

Coones v. Cogburn fortifies a growing body of Fifth Circuit law holding that “the Constitution sweats, too”—prisoners cannot be left to bake in lethal heat, and officials may be personally liable when they ignore manifest symptoms of heat distress. The decision tightens pleading expectations for ADA and malpractice theories, but it simultaneously lowers the evidentiary bar—at least at the Rule 12 stage—for Eighth Amendment heat-exposure claims. As climate change magnifies heat hazards, Coones is poised to become a touchstone for constitutional litigation in carceral settings, blending environmental realities with civil-rights imperatives.