Opinion ID: 171804
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Supervisor Liability – Defendant Miller

Text: “Because the sufficiency of a complaint is a question of law, we review de novo the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 6), applying the same standards as the district court.” Russell v. United States, 551 F.3d 1174, 1178 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). In the Rule 12(b)(6) context, we look for plausibility in the complaint. In particular, we look to the specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief. Rather than adjudging whether a claim is improbable, factual allegations in a complaint must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations and quotations omitted). Starks argues the district court erred in dismissing his claims against Miller because Miller failed to take corrective action in response to his complaints concerning Lewis and it is “clear that Prison officials may not subject an inmate -6- in their custody to life threatening situation[s].” (Appellant’s Br. at 8.) 2 Starks points to Choate v. Lockhart, for the proposition that “[s]upervisors can incur liability for cruel and unusual punishment in two ways: they can be liable for their personal involvement in a constitutional violation, or when their corrective inaction amounts to deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the violative practices.” 7 F.3d 1370, 1376 (8th Cir. 1993) (citations and quotations omitted). Starks contends when Miller received his grievance against Lewis and failed to address his retaliation claims, Miller demonstrated his tacit authorization of Lewis’ actions. To the extent Starks claims Miller is liable for a First Amendment violation as Lewis’ supervisor, we have summarized the parameters of supervisory liability under § 1983 as follows: Under § 1983, government officials are not vicariously liable for the misconduct of their subordinates. There is no concept of strict supervisor liability under § 1983. This does not mean that a supervisor may not be liable for the injuries caused by the conduct of one of his subordinates. It does mean that his liability is not vicarious, that is, without fault on his part. 2 “Under certain circumstances, a district court may, notwithstanding failure to exhaust, proceed to the merits of the claim and dismiss with prejudice if it concludes a party would be unsuccessful even absent the exhaustion issue.” Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134, 1139 (10th Cir. 2005); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2) (“In the event that a claim is, on its face, frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, the court may dismiss the underlying claim without first requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies.”). This is the approach taken by the district court in regards to Starks’ claims against Warden Miller. -7- Supervisors are only liable under § 1983 for their own culpable involvement in the violation of a person's constitutional rights. To establish supervisor liability under § 1983, it is not enough for a plaintiff merely to show a defendant was in charge of other state actors who actually committed the violation. Instead, the plaintiff must establish a deliberate, intentional act by the supervisor to violate constitutional rights. In short, the supervisor must be personally involved in the constitutional violation, and a sufficient causal connection must exist between the supervisor and the constitutional violation. In order to establish a § 1983 claim against a supervisor for the unconstitutional acts of his subordinates, a plaintiff must first show the supervisor’s subordinates violated the constitution. Then, a plaintiff must show an affirmative link between the supervisor and the violation, namely the active participation or acquiescence of the supervisor in the constitutional violation by the subordinates. In this context, the supervisor’s state of mind is a critical bridge between the conduct of a subordinate and his own behavior. Because mere negligence is not enough to hold a supervisor liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that the supervisor acted knowingly or with deliberate indifference that a constitutional violation would occur. Serna v. Colorado Dep’t. of Corr., 455 F.3d 1146, 1151 (10th Cir. 2006) (citations and quotations omitted). Miller’s response to Starks’ grievance negates any inference he acquiesced to Lewis’ alleged retaliation in response to Starks’ discrimination claim. Miller stated: “Mr. Lewis questioned the security of the facility with you as an employee; therefore, he has the authority to recommend your dismissal and to not rehire you . . . . [D]iscrimination has nothing to do with this incident.” (R. Doc. 1, Ex. 4.) To the extent Starks is claiming Miller violated the Eighth -8- Amendment in breaching his “duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners,” his complaint must meet the standards in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (citation omitted). Starks must plead (1) a substantial risk of serious harm (objective prong) and (2) [Miller’s] deliberate indifference to that risk (subjective prong). Id. at 834. Starks’ complaint fails both prongs. “It is not . . . every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of another that translates into [a] constitutional liability . . . .” Id. To be deliberately indifferent a prison official must know of and disregard “an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. Starks’ grievance contained only the charge that Lewis allowed an inmate to type and read the response to Starks and, as a result, Starks feared for his life because inmates who have been caught stealing “have been looking at [Starks] as if [he] is the cause of them losing their jobs.” (R. Doc. 1, Ex. 4.) He does not claim Miller received any other information regarding Starks’ circumstances or was aware of the “threats” he alleges in his complaint. These allegations are insufficient to notify Miller of any ongoing constitutional violation, let alone establish Miller’s deliberate indifference to alleged unconstitutional activity. Warden Miller -9- is under no duty to personally conduct a full investigation into an inmate’s complaint that the other inmates are “looking” at him. This is hardly a claim of “excessive risk to safety” or notice of a “substantial risk of serious harm.” The district court correctly dismissed Starks’ claims against Miller. AFFIRMED. Entered by the Court: Terrence L. O’Brien