Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): from liability for injury proximately caused by his own negligent or wrongful act or omission.” Id. Defendants argue that the Supervisory Defendants (Blasnek, Cruz, McGrattan, Onhemus, and Washington) cannot be liable for their subordinates’ alleged use of excessive force under § 52.1 pursuant to § 820.8. However, each of the Supervisory Defendants was found liable for her own actions under § 52.1, including witnessing and directing their subordinates to violate Plaintiffs’ rights. {See Docket Nos. 592-601 (verdict forms).) Therefore immunity under § 820.8 does not apply. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 744 (9th Cir.1978) (“California law expressly imposes liability on a public employee for his own act or omission”); Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); McKay v. City of Hayward, 949 F.Supp.2d 971, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a municipality cannot be held liable for an official policy or custom if it has been determined that the individual defendants did not violate the plaintiffs constitutional rights (B) holding that a superior can be held liable in his individual capacity if he participated in the deprivation of a plaintiffs constitutional rights (C) holding that liability under  1983 can be established by showing that the defendants either personally participated in a deprivation of the plaintiffs rights or caused such a deprivation to occur (D) holding plaintiff stated claim in his individual capacity (E) holding that a state officer sued in his individual capacity may be held personally liable for damages under 42 usc  1983 based upon actions taken in his official capacity
Output (English): holding that a municipality cannot be held liable for an official policy or custom if it has been determined that the individual defendants did not violate the plaintiffs constitutional rights