Barney v. Pulsipher
143 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 1998)
Holding
The Tenth Circuit established the framework for supervisory liability under § 1983, holding that a supervisor can be held personally liable when there is an affirmative link between the supervisor's conduct and the constitutional violation. The court articulated that liability requires the supervisor to have had actual or constructive knowledge of a risk of constitutional harm and to have failed to act to prevent it.
What This Case Is About
Susan Barney and Kathy Christensen, two female inmates at the Box Elder County Jail in Utah, brought a § 1983 action against Sheriff Gerald R. Pulsipher, Box Elder County, and several county commissioners. The plaintiffs alleged that they were subjected to sexual assault and abuse while housed in the jail, and that Sheriff Pulsipher and the county officials knew about the risks of such abuse but failed to take action to prevent it. The case raised fundamental questions about when supervisors and municipalities can be held liable under § 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their subordinates.
What the Court Decided
The Tenth Circuit issued a landmark decision on supervisory liability in § 1983 cases, establishing a clear framework that has been cited over 770 times. The court held that supervisory liability requires more than a theory of respondeat superior—the supervisor must have personal involvement in the constitutional violation. Specifically, the court articulated that a supervisor can be held liable when: (1) the supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge of a subordinate’s misconduct; (2) the supervisor’s response was inadequate given the known risk; and (3) there is an affirmative link between the supervisor’s inaction and the constitutional injury. The court also addressed Monell municipal liability, examining whether the county’s policies or customs contributed to the constitutional violations.
Why This Case Matters for Pro Se Litigants
Barney v. Pulsipher is one of the most important supervisory liability cases in the Tenth Circuit and is essential authority for anyone suing not just the officer who directly violated their rights, but also the officer’s supervisors—sergeants, lieutenants, chiefs, and sheriffs—who knew about a pattern of misconduct and did nothing. In Utah and across the Tenth Circuit, this case provides the roadmap for proving that a supervisor’s deliberate indifference to a known risk makes them personally liable under § 1983. For pro se litigants, this means documenting the chain of command, prior complaints, and evidence that supervisors knew about a problem and failed to act. This case turns passive neglect by leadership into actionable liability.