Opinion ID: 4503539
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appleton’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: Appleton sought summary adjudication of Vazquez’s claim for relief for supervisory liability under § 1983. “Although there is no pure respondeat superior liability under § 1983, a supervisor is liable for the acts of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations [of subordinates] and failed to act to prevent them. Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The requisite causal connection may be established when an official sets in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict constitutional harms.” Id. at 1183 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Vazquez identified facts from which a jury could find that Appleton “set[] in motion a series of acts” which he reasonably should have known would cause Anderson to 10 PREA defines “sexual harassment” as “[r]epeated verbal comments or gestures of a sexual nature to an inmate, detainee, or resident by a staff member, contractor, or volunteer, including demeaning references to gender, sexually suggestive or derogatory comments about body or clothing, or obscene language or gestures.” 28 C.F.R. § 115.6. 22 VAZQUEZ V. COUNTY OF KERN inflict constitutional harm. Id. at 1183. First, he observed Anderson alone with female wards on more than one occasion and failed to intervene. Anderson also testified that Appleton gave him permission to be alone in a cell with female wards during work details. Second, Appleton was aware of a prior incident involving Anderson’s supervision of female wards’ showers. Approximately six months before Vazquez raised her allegations, a staff member overheard Anderson tell a female ward to get ready to shower when the female staff and other wards were outside at physical education. The staff member was concerned by Anderson’s actions, partly because the gap in the shower curtains would allow someone sitting at the staff counter to see into the showers. She took notes about the incident and reported it to Appleton. Appleton did not write Anderson up, but he did bring up the incident with his supervisor. 11 Appleton testified that his supervisor told him to remind Anderson to have a female staff member in the unit while showers were conducted. Appleton testified he did not recall exactly how he spoke to Anderson about the matter but that he would have conveyed to him something “along the lines” of needing “to have a female present during showers.” From this evidence a jury could find that Appleton knew or reasonably should have known of Anderson’s violations and failed to act to prevent them. See Preschooler II, 479 F.3d at 1182. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Vazquez and making all justifiable inferences in her favor, we hold that the district court erred 11 Appleton was trained that if he observed any red flags of sexual abuse or if he received any reports from other staff members, he had to document and report the observations. VAZQUEZ V. COUNTY OF KERN 23 when it concluded there was no evidence supporting a causal link between Appleton’s conduct and Anderson’s alleged violation of Vazquez’s constitutional rights.