Opinion ID: 2758220
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Chief Brickman

Text: Plaintiffs argue that Chief Brickman should be held liable because he allowed Officer Doyle to continue to interact with juveniles despite multiple past complaints accusing Officer Doyle of using excessive force. The district court correctly recognized that the record is devoid of any direct involvement by Chief Brickman in the alleged constitutional violations asserted by Plaintiffs. Therefore, Chief Brickman is not liable in his individual capacity. See Harvey v. Campbell Cnty., 5 No. 13-4397, Bolden et al. v. City of Euclid et al. 453 F. App’x 557, 564 (6th Cir. 2011); Shehee v. Lutrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). The claim against Chief Brickman is properly addressed as a deliberate indifference claim against the City of Euclid, not against Chief Brickman personally. See Harvey, 453 F. App’x at 564.