## Facts

- Cecil E. McClelland sued multiple law-enforcement officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations arising from a traffic stop, arrest, and detention in New Mexico.
- McClelland alleged that after being stopped for speeding and refusing to sign a citation, a state patrol officer arrested him and prevented him from using a mobile telephone to contact counsel or arrange for his vehicle.
- At the Farmington City Jail, McClelland alleged he was questioned without warnings, denied phone calls, and not promptly taken before a magistrate; bond was set and he was released after payment.
- McClelland alleged that before release he was beaten and injured by the arresting officer in the presence of other officers.
- McClelland asserted violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, including unlawful seizure, denial of counsel/communication, delay in presentment, and excessive force.
- Claims against three line officers were settled; the remaining defendants on appeal were two chiefs (one state police chief and one city police chief), neither alleged to have personally participated in the incident.
- McClelland sought to impose liability on the chiefs based on inadequate training and procedures, inadequate supervision and control, and failure to act despite alleged knowledge of prior misconduct within their departments (including prior incidents publicized in litigation and media).

## Issues

1. Whether supervisory officials may be individually liable under § 1983 absent personal participation, based on inadequate training or supervision, or failure to act in the face of known misconduct.
2. Whether the record showed genuine disputes of material fact regarding the chiefs’ notice of prior misconduct and their alleged failure to respond, making summary judgment improper.
3. Whether settlement-based judgment against line officers barred the remaining § 1983 claims against the chiefs.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the chiefs on claims attacking the adequacy of training programs and written procedures.
- The court reversed summary judgment on the supervision/failure-to-act theory, holding that the record created a triable factual dispute about whether the chiefs had notice of prior misconduct and failed to take corrective action.
- The court rejected the argument that settlement with other defendants precluded claims against the chiefs, reasoning that claims against each defendant are separate.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the supervision/failure-to-act claims.

## Legal Principles

- § 1983 does not impose supervisory liability based on respondeat superior; a plaintiff must show an “affirmative link” between the supervisor’s own acts or omissions and the constitutional violation.
- A supervisory-liability theory based on inadequate training or written procedures requires evidentiary support; uncontroverted affidavits and record evidence may justify summary judgment.
- Supervisors may face § 1983 liability when evidence permits an inference that they knew or should have known of recurring constitutional violations by subordinates and failed to act, and that omission is causally connected to the plaintiff’s injury.
- Settlement or judgment as to some defendants does not, by itself, bar § 1983 claims against other defendants arising from the same events.

## Conclusion

The court held that the plaintiff failed to create a factual dispute on claims challenging formal training and written procedures, but that evidence of prior incidents and publicity could support an inference of notice and inaction by supervisory officials, requiring trial-level resolution of supervisory-liability claims based on failure to supervise or intervene.


McClelland v. Facteau, 610 F.2d 693 (10th Cir. 1979)