Opinion ID: 509612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellant's Complaint

Text: 8 The complaint was filed as a proceeding in forma pauperis and appellant drafted the complaint himself. Even so, a court may dismiss such a case if satisfied that the action is frivolous, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), and vicarious liability is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Cotton, 577 F.2d at 455. 9 There can be no question that appellant's complaint sought relief solely on a vicarious liability theory. A comparison of the elements necessary to impose supervisory liability with the allegations made in appellant's complaint bears this out. 10 To prove a supervisory liability claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that prisoners face a pervasive and unreasonable risk of harm from some specified source and that the supervisor's corrective inaction amounts to deliberate indifference or  'tacit authorization of the offensive [practices].'  Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 373 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1035, 105 S.Ct. 1413, 84 L.Ed.2d 796 (1985) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson, 632 F.2d 1096, 1101 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 929, 101 S.Ct. 1387, 67 L.Ed.2d 361 (1981)). A single incident, or isolated incidents, do not ordinarily satisfy this burden. Orpiano, 632 F.2d at 1101. 11 In his complaint, appellant mentions the warden and director in only two contexts. He first mentions them to substantiate his claim that the correctional staff members were negligent in not coming to his aid. The staff members were apparently negligent, in appellant's view, because the warden and director and or his subordinates    should have known that [appellant] was being treated for lower back disabilities    which rendered [appellant] virtually helpless.!! Complaint at 4. 12 Appellant again mentioned these two defendants in the following manner where he listed his claims: 13
14
15 3. That the director is legally responsible for the overall operation of the ISP; and 16 4. The warden is legally responsible for the operation of ISP and inmate welfare. 17 See Complaint at 4-5. 18 We recognize that a prisoner's pro se civil rights complaint is to be liberally construed. Wilson v. Iowa, 636 F.2d 1166, 1167 (8th Cir.1981). Moreover, the district court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory. Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir.1974). At the same time, liberal construction concerns whether it appears beyond a doubt that petitioner can prove no set of facts in support of his claim   . Smith v. Bacon, 699 F.2d 434, 436 (8th Cir.1983) (quoting Wilson, 636 F.2d at 1168)). We do not believe, however, that a district court must pretend that certain facts exist in order to foresee a theory of recovery not actually raised or reasonably inferred by the pleader. 19 Appellant's account of the fight tells of a well run, secure prison where guards have no excuse not to physically stop a fight. According to appellant's complaint, over a dozen guards stood idly by watching and laughing during the fight. Complaint at 4. There was no mention of previous fights; understaffing; a dangerous atmosphere; or any deliberate indifference or tacit approval by the warden and director of an offensive practice, e.g., nonintervention by prison personnel in fights. In short, the only offensive practice alleged was the isolated occurrence in which these staff members failed to intervene to stop the fight. Williams' complaint simply stated a claim seeking relief on vicarious liability grounds. We, therefore, affirm the original dismissal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d).