# Porter v. Epps

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · September 28, 2011 · 659 F.3d 440

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9484827

## Case

- **Full name:** Will Terrance PORTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher B. EPPS, Individually and in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 28, 2011
- **Citations:** 659 F.3d 440; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19756; 2011 WL 4471051
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Owen
- **Judges:** Reavley, Prado, Owen
- **Cited by:** 340 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/9484827

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a supervisory official may be held liable only if “(1) he affirmatively participates in the acts that cause the constitutional deprivation, or (2) he implements unconstitutional policies that causally result in the constitutional injury.”
- holding that a supervisory official may be held liable under section 1983 for implementing an unconstitutional policy that causally results in a constitutional injury
- recognizing that qualified immunity shields officials unless the plaintiff demonstrates the defendant violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established”
- explaining that causation is necessary under any theory of federal supervisory liability

## Opinion text

OWEN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the opinion of the court, except to the extent that it might be read as placing any reliance on this court’s decision in Bryan v. Jones. 2
In this court’s en banc opinion in Bryan, we said more than thirty-five years ago that a jailer could be held liable “[i]f he negligently establishes a record keeping system in which errors [leading to continued incarceration after charges were dismissed] are likely.” 3 In light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions, 4 this is not a correct statement of the law.
As today’s opinion correctly notes, liability for failures to promulgate policy, train, or supervise can only arise when the defendant acts with deliberate indifference, 5 a considerably higher standard than negligence. 6 “[Deliberate indifference is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action,” 7 not merely a likely one. The court’s opinion today properly applies current Supreme Court precedent as the governing law. To the extent that Bryan is cited as establishing a negligent standard, that is not the applicable standard, and it is not the standard that the court actually applies.
With the foregoing explanation, I concur in the opinion of the court.
. 530 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir.1976) (en banc).
. Id. at 1215 .
. See, e.g., Connick v. Thompson, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1350 , 179 L.Ed.2d 417 (2011); Bd. of Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty., Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 , 117 S.Ct. 1382 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997).
. Ante, at 446-47.
. Bryan Cnty., 520 U.S. at 407 , 117 S.Ct. 1382 ("A showing of simple or even heightened negligence will not suffice.”).
. Connick, 131 S.Ct. at 1360 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Bryan Cnty., 520 U.S. at 409 , 117 S.Ct. 1382 ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9484827. Public record. Not legal advice.