Pleading Standards for §1983 Claims Against Government Supervisors

In Tangreti v. Bachmann, No. 19-3712 (2d Cir. Dec. 28, 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), on the standard for establishing §1983 claims against government supervisors. In an opinion written by Circuit Judge Steven J. Menashi and joined by Circuit Judge John M. Walker Jr., the court held that “there is no special rule for supervisory liability” under §1983. Rather, “a plaintiff must plead that each government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution,” a showing that will vary depending on the constitutional violated alleged. As a result, a plaintiff can no longer state a viable §1983 claim against a government supervisor based on a lesser mental state than would be required to establish an underlying constitutional violation.

Section 1983 and Second Circuit Precedent

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against a person who, acting under color of state law, deprives a plaintiff of a constitutionally protected right. The Second Circuit has long held that, to make out a §1983 claim against a government supervisor, “respondeat superior does not suffice and a showing of some personal responsibility of the defendant is required.” Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1034 (2d Cir. 1973). In its 1995 decision in Colon v. Coughlin, the court identified five categories of evidence on which a plaintiff could rely to establish the requisite “personal responsibility”:

(1) the defendant participated directly in the alleged constitutional violation, (2) the defendant, after being informed of the violation through a report or appeal, failed to remedy the wrong, (3) the defendant created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of [the plaintiff] by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring.