Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): indifference to the rights of inmates by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring.” Id. (citing Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir.1994)). Following Iqbal, courts in this district have held that a defendant cannot be held liable under section 1983 unless that defendant took an action that deprived the plaintiff of his or her constitutional rights. See, e.g., Joseph v. Fischer, 2009 WL 3321011, at *15, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96952, at *42-43 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2009) (“[pjlaintiffs claim, based on [a supervisor’s] failure to take corrective measures, is precisely the type of claim Iqbal eliminated.”); Bellamy v. Mount Vernon Hosp., 07 Civ. 1801, 2009 WL 1835939, at *6, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54141, at *27-28 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 26, 2009) (<HOLDING>); Newton v. City of New York, 640 F.Supp.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that iqbal eliminated supervisory liability previously permitted by colon in situations where the supervisor knew of and acquiesced to a constitutional violation committed by a subordinate (B) holding that a constitutional violation by a subordinate is a predicate for supervisory liability under  1983 (C) holding that deliberate indifference standard for imposing supervisory liability based on an eighth amendment violation is consistent with iqbal and collecting cases (D) holding that supervisory liability under  1983 requires a showing that the supervisory official at least implicitly authorized or approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate (E) holding colon standard is unaffected by iqbal in deliberate indifference case because iqbal involved discriminatory intent
Output (English): holding colon standard is unaffected by iqbal in deliberate indifference case because iqbal involved discriminatory intent