# Chinchello v. Fenton

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · November 14, 1986 · 805 F.2d 126

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8946095

## Case

- **Full name:** CHINCHELLO, Edward, Lewisburg Prison Project, Inc. Schoppert, Douglas, Esquire v. FENTON, Charles, Carlson, Norman, Director, Bureau of Prisons, Doe, John, Corrections Officer, FCI, El Reno, Scott, Officer, Corrections Officer, FCI, El Reno, Welsh, Gene, Correctional Supervisor, FCI, El Reno, Oklahoma, Martin, Thomas C., Warden, FCI, El Reno, Oklahoma, Wisehart, David L., Chief Correctional Supervisor, FCI, La Tuna, Texas, Wingfield, R., Chief Correctional Supervisor, FCI, El Reno, Oklahoma, United States of America, Martin, Robert, Martin, Thomas C. Appeal of Norman CARLSON and Boyde Scott
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** November 14, 1986
- **Citations:** 805 F.2d 126
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Seitz
- **Judges:** Adams, Seitz, Staple, Stapleton, Ton
- **Cited by:** 185 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8946095

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8946095. Public record. Not legal advice.