Opinion ID: 620818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity on Plaintiffs' Claims for Money Damages

Text: The Plaintiffs' complaint proceeds under two theories of liability against the Defendants in their individual capacities. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are: (a) liable for their own conduct because they created policies and procedures that violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights; and, (b) liable because they were deliberately indifferent to their subordinates' constitutional violations. See Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 988. Plaintiffs' allegations fail to state claims against Defendants in their individual capacities under either theory of liability. Plaintiffs' complaint is based on conclusory allegations and generalities, without any allegation of the specific wrong-doing by each Defendant. For example, Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim alleges that Defendants' policies, practices and customs subject [Plaintiffs] to unreasonable searches; searches as a form of punishment; degrading public strip searches; improper seizures of personal belongings; and the use of unreasonable force and physical restraints. But there is no allegation of a specific policy implemented by the Defendants or a specific event or events instigated by the Defendants that led to these purportedly unconstitutional searches. Plaintiffs' remaining claims suffer from the same infirmities. Plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claim alleges that Defendants have personal knowledge of retaliation against [the Plaintiffs] for participation in lawsuits, but Defendants' policies, practices and customs permit and encourage retaliation. But there is no allegation of a specific policy or custom, nor are there specific allegations regarding each Defendant's purported knowledge of the retaliation. The remainder of Plaintiffs' claims are likewise devoid of specifics. The absence of specifics is significant because, to establish individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948. Even under a deliberate indifference theory of individual liability, the Plaintiffs must still allege sufficient facts to plausibly establish the defendant's knowledge of and acquiescence in the unconstitutional conduct of his subordinates. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1206-07. In short, Plaintiffs' bald and conclusory allegations are insufficient to establish individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950-53; cf. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216-17.