finding that although a supervisor cannot encourage constitutional violations, “a supervising public official has [no] affirmative constitutional duty to supervise and discipline so as to prevent violations of constitutional rights by his or her subordinates
How later courts described this case
- finding that although a supervisor cannot encourage constitutional violations, “a supervising public official has [no] affirmative constitutional duty to supervise and discipline so as to prevent violations of constitutional rights by his or her subordinates
- suggesting that, although "the qualified immunity issue may be said to overlap with the legal issue on the merits" when defendant's alleged conduct in no way breaches a rule of liability, immunity issue may nonetheless be sufficiently conceptually distinct to permit review
- explaining that district court properly concluded that plaintiff’s Bivens claims against federal employee in the employee’s official capacity were barred by sovereign immunity
- dismissing Bivens claim against the Director of Bureau of Prisons alleging that his failure to train, supervise, and discipline his .subordinates resulted in plaintiffs injuries
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SEITZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Plaintiff Chinchello’s claim is that the Constitution imposed on Carlson affirmative duties to train, supervise and discipline his subordinates so that the plaintiff’s constitutional rights would not be invaded. Assuming the existence of some such affirmative duties, I believe that, as applied to Carlson, the extent of those constitutional duties was not free from doubt under the case law existing at the critical date. I therefore agree that we have jurisdiction over Carlson’s appeal and I concur in the judgment of the court reversing the district court based on the application of the qualified immunity doctrine.
I agree that Scott’s appeal should be dismissed.