Opinion ID: 775041
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Wardens: Warden Gary McCaughtry, Deputy Warden Jane Gamble

Text: 54 Mrs. Sanville alleges that the wardens failed to adopt and enforce adequate suicide prevention policies and that they also failed to train and supervise the guards and doctors. 8 Because we have already determined that plaintiff's official capacity claims against McCaughtry and Gamble should have been dismissed, we need only consider the claims against the wardens in their individual capacities. The plaintiff faces a substantial challenge because failure to train claims are usually maintained against municipalities, not against individuals, see, e.g., Williams v. Heavener, 217 F.3d 529, 532 (7th Cir. 2000); Kitzman-Kelley v. Warner, 203 F.3d 454, 459 (7th Cir. 2000), and, in the Eighth Amendment context, such claims may only be maintained against a municipality. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 841 (noting that the standard applied in City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 109 S. Ct. 1197, 103 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1989), was not an appropriate test for determining the liability of prison officials under the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in our cases). 55 The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to sec. 1983 actions; thus to be held individually liable, a defendant must be personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right. Chavez, 251 F.3d at 651 (quotation omitted); see also Wolf-Lillie, 699 F.2d at 869 (Section 1983 creates a cause of action based upon personal liability and predicated upon fault.). A defendant will be deemed to have sufficient personal responsibility if he directed the conduct causing the constitutional violation, or if it occurred with his knowledge or consent. Chavez, 251 F.3d at 652. This definition recognizes that the individual does not have to have participated directly in the deprivation. See McPhaul v. Board of Comm'rs of Madison Co., 226 F.3d 558, 566 (7th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). Thus, a supervisor may be liable for deliberate, reckless indifference to the misconduct of subordinates. See Chavez, 251 F.3d at 651. (The supervisors must know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a blind eye for fear of what they might see.) (quotations omitted). 56 Mrs. Sanville accuses defendants of tolerating a number of transgressions which she contends rose to the level of systematic failure: 1) on four separate occasions, three guards ignored the paper on Matt's cell; 2) the camera in his cell was not active the entire three weeks he was in segregation; 3) Matt lost nearly one-third of his body weight while in segregation; and 4) the guards allegedly received no suicide prevention training. None of these allegations, however, suggest that the wardens were personally responsible for any deprivation. Nor does plaintiff allege that they turned a blind eye to any particular conduct of the remaining defendants. We thus agree with the district court that plaintiff has alleged no facts that would support a finding of liability with respect to the wardens. 57