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

Heading: The elements of Santiago's claims

Text: Our initial task is to tak[e] note of the elements [Santiago] must plead in order to state a claim of § 1983 liability. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1947-48 (identifying [t]he factors necessary to establish a Bivens violation in order to determine what the plaintiff must plead and prove). To state a claim of supervisory liability against Chief Murphy and Lt. Donnelly, at least of the kind that it appears Santiago is advancing, she must plead that they directed others to violate [her rights], A.M., 372 F.3d at 586. Of course, Chief Murphy and Lt. Donnelly could only be liable if the people they supposedly directed to violate her rights actually did so; otherwise, the fact that [Chief Murphy and Lt. Donnelly] might have [directed] the use of constitutionally excessive force is quite beside the point. City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S.Ct. 1571, 89 L.Ed.2d 806 (1986). Thus, any claim that supervisors directed others to violate constitutional rights necessarily includes as an element an actual violation at the hands of subordinates. In addition, a plaintiff must allege a causal connection between the supervisor's direction and that violation, or, in other words, proximate causation. Proximate causation is established where the supervisor gave directions that the supervisor knew or should reasonably have known would cause others to deprive the plaintiff of her constitutional rights. Conner v. Reinhard, 847 F.2d 384, 397 (7th Cir.1988); see also Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 700 (10th Cir. 1990). Particularly after Iqbal, the connection between the supervisor's directions and the constitutional deprivation must be sufficient to demonstrate a `plausible nexus' or `affirmative link' between the [directions] and the specific deprivation of constitutional rights at issue. Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 121 (3d Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, to state her claim against Chief Murphy and Lt. Donnelly, Santiago needs to have pled facts plausibly demonstrating that they directed Alpha Team to conduct the operation in a manner that they knew or should reasonably have known would cause [Alpha Team] to deprive [Santiago] of her constitutional rights. Conner, 847 F.2d at 397. As to her claim against Lt. Springfield, Santiago must allege facts making it plausible that he had knowledge of [Alpha Team's use of excessive force during the raid] and acquiesced in [Alpha Team's] violations. [8] A.M., 372 F.3d at 586.