When the Supreme Court issued Ashcroft v. Iqbal in 2009, it drew attention for its new rules guiding motions to dismiss, requiring plaintiffs to make "plausible" claims for relief, a standard that is not found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That significantly changed the landscape for Rule 12 pleading, which had only required plaintiffs to state a claim. But Iqbal had a lesser-known holding relating to how plaintiffs can hold municipal supervisors liable under Section 1983. The Second Circuit has interpreted Iqbal to make supervisory liability more difficult to prove.
The case is Tangreti v. Bachmann, issued on December 28. Plaintiff was a prison inmate who claimed she was sexually abused and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. One of these defendants is Bachmann. Plaintiff claimed that Bachmann had reason to know about the sexual abuse but did nothing about it. The district court denied Bachmann's motion for summary judgment, citing Second Circuit authority that holds that public supervisors can be liable for their gross negligence in supervising subordinates. That authority was Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995). The Court of Appeals (Menashi, Park and Livingston) holds that Colon conflicts with Iqbal and that Iqbal requires Section 1983 plaintiffs to show the supervisor was personally involved in the constitutional violation. Colon is now overruled. This is big news for lawyers who handle Section 1983 cases and probably know the Colon factors by heart. If not by heart, they certainly know about them and have cited Colon many times.
The Second Circuit notes that "Before the Supreme Court decided Iqbal, we identified five categories of evidence that may establish the liability of a supervisory official for a subordinate's conduct under § 1983." Those factors are as follows:
The personal involvement of a supervisory defendant may be shown by evidence that: (1) the defendant participated directly in the alleged constitutional violation, (2) the defendant, after being informed of the violation through a report or appeal, failed to remedy the wrong, (3) the defendant created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of [the plaintiffs] by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring.
Language in Iqbal placed these standards in question. The Second Circuit states that "Iqbal holds that a plaintiff may not rely on a special test for supervisory liability." Iqbal also said that "the factors necessary to establish a [Section 1983] violation vary with the constitutional provision at issue. When, as in Iqbal, 'the claim is invidious discrimination in contravention of the First and Fifth Amendments ... the plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant acted with discriminatory purpose,' regardless of whether the defendant is a subordinate or a supervisor." Therefore, Iqbal stated, a supervisor's "mere knowledge of his subordinate's discriminatory purpose" is not sufficient because that knowledge does not "amount[] to the supervisor's violating the Constitution." Despite this language, trial courts in the Second Circuit continued to hold that Colon v. Coughlin was still good law depending on the nature of the plaintiff's claim. Those cases are no longer good law. The Court of Appeals holds:
after Iqbal, there is no special rule for supervisory liability. Instead, a plaintiff must plead and prove "that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution." "The factors necessary to establish a [§ 1983] violation will vary with the constitutional provision at issue" because the elements of different constitutional violations vary. The violation must be established against the supervisory official directly.
. . .
Tangreti must therefore establish that Bachmann violated the Eighth Amendment by Bachmann's own conduct, not by reason of Bachmann's supervision of others who committed the violation. She must show that Bachmann herself "acted with `deliberate indifference'"—meaning that Bachmann personally knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Tangreti's health or safety.
Since the plaintiff cannot meet the new standard guiding supervisory liability, the Court of Appeals holds that she cannot prevail against Bachmann, and that defendant is dismissed from the case.
Labels:
0 comments:
Post a Comment