Opinion ID: 2767413
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim against Principal McGill

Text: The Pierces base their Section 1983 claim against Principal McGill on a theory of supervisory liability. Under this theory, “the plaintiff must show that: (1) the supervisor either failed to supervise or train the subordinate official; (2) a causal link exists between the failure to train or supervise and the violation of the plaintiff’s rights; and (3) the failure to train or supervise amounts to deliberate indifference.” Smith v. Brenoettsy, 158 F.3d 908, 911-12 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Deliberate indifference in this context ordinarily requires a “pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees . . . .” Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1360 (2011); see also Burge v. St. Tammany Parish, 336 F.3d 363, 370 (5th Cir. 2003). The Pierces claim that Principal McGill acted with deliberate indifference when he permitted Trojacek to take students to work on his farm without their parents’ permission. For reasons similar to those discussed above, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that Principal McGill’s actions constituted, at most, negligence. Moreover, the Pierces have not demonstrated that a pattern of constitutional injuries resulted from Principal McGill’s actions. Therefore, Principal McGill did not act with deliberate indifference. Additionally, Principal McGill was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.