Opinion ID: 545563
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Responsibility for Alleged Violations

Text: 16 Although plaintiffs asserted that a conspiracy existed among defendants to violate their rights, the factual allegations did not sufficiently suggest a meeting of the minds to sustain this claim. See, e.g., Deck v. Leftridge, 771 F.2d 1168, 1170 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam). 17 Liability under Sec. 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71, 375-77, 96 S.Ct. 598, 603-04, 606-07, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976); Cotton v. Hutto, 577 F.2d 453, 455 (8th Cir.1978) (per curiam) (respondeat superior theory does not apply in Sec. 1983 suits). There is no indication in the record that the defendant board members or classifications officers had any personal connection with the working conditions alleged to amount to cruel and unusual punishment for Holloway, or with the alleged retaliatory and discriminatory actions. Holloway alleged, however, that defendant Perry was directly responsible for the conditions and at least some of the actions, and defendants Norris and Lockhart had personal knowledge of them through their review of the relevant grievances. Thus, except as to their liability, in their official capacities, for damages, see Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 433 (8th Cir.1989), Perry, Norris and Lockhart were not entitled to summary judgment on these issues. 18 Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in part and remanded in part for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.