Opinion ID: 2981788
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Supervisory and Municipal Liabilities.

Text: To prove a claim for supervisory liability against Police Chief Golden and Assistant Police Chief Nicol, Watson must show, at a minimum, “that the [supervisors] at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending officers.” McQueen v. Beecher Cmty. Schs., 433 F.3d 460,470 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To prove his claim of municipal liability against the City, Watson must show that its failure to train officers on the proper use of tasers “amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989). Thus, a prerequisite to both of these claims is that a constitutional violation has occurred. See Hagans, 695 F.3d at 511 (quoting Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, 486 F.3d 385, 393 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc)) (A municipality “cannot exhibit fault rising to the level of deliberate indifference to a constitutional right when that right has not yet been clearly established.”); McQueen, 433 F.3d at 470 (“[A] prerequisite of supervisory liability under § 1983 is unconstitutional conduct . . . .”). Because Watson cannot show either a clearly established right or a violation thereof, his derivative claims for municipal liability and supervisory liability were also properly dismissed.