Opinion ID: 181046
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Nature of Santiago's Claims

Text: Liability based on respondeat superior arises solely on the basis of the existence of an employer-employee relationship, regardless of whether the employer had any part in causing harm. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 692, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Contrary to the District Court's view, that is not the theory Santiago advances. Instead, Santiago's allegations appear to invoke a theory of liability under which a supervisor may be personally liable ... if he or she participated in violating the plaintiff's rights, directed others to violate them, or, as the person in charge, had knowledge of and acquiesced in his subordinates' violations. [5] A.M. ex rel. J.M.K. v. Luzerne Cnty. Juvenile Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 586 (3d Cir.2004). Specifically, Santiago alleges that Chief Murphy and Lt. Donnelly developed a plan that sought to have all occupants exit the Plaintiff's home, one at a time, with hands raised under threat of fire, patted down for weapons, and then handcuffed until the home had been cleared and searched. (Third Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 21, 23.) The claim is thus that, through the creation and authorization of the plan, Chief Murphy and Lt. Donnelly directed others to violate [Santiago's rights]. A.M., 372 F.3d at 586. The related allegation that Lt. Springfield, as the person in charge of the operation, permitted the use of excessive force appears to be a claim that Lt. Springfield acquiesced in his subordinates' violations. [6] A.M., 372 F.3d at 586. Consequently, although the Third Amended Complaint seeks a species of supervisory liability, it is not respondeat superior liability.