Opinion ID: 2681508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: claims against the supervisors

Text: Finally, we address the constitutional claims against Agent Mesa’s supervisors. “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens . . . suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). The Appellants allege that the supervisors promulgated policies they knew were inadequate regarding the use of deadly force and also failed to train officers regarding the appropriate use of their firearms. As the district court noted, however, neither of the remaining supervisors was shown to have any personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. Specifically, the district court found that Agent Cordero “had not served as a line supervisor for agents in Agent Mesa’s position since 2006”—four years before the incident—and that it had been at least eight months since Agent Manjarrez had supervised Agent Mesa. The Appellants do 44 Case: 11-50792 Document: 00512681077 Page: 45 Date Filed: 06/30/2014 No. 11-50792 not challenge these findings and point to no specific policy nor any other evidence that would suggest that the supervisors were personally responsible for the alleged constitutional violation. Under these circumstances, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the supervisors.