Shaw v. Stroud

Shaw v. Stroud arose from a police shooting in North Carolina and became one of the most important Fourth Circuit decisions on supervisory liability under § 1983. The plaintiff alleged that law enforcement officers used excessive force and that supervisory officials were liable for failing to prevent the constitutional violation despite knowing about a pattern of similar misconduct.

The Fourth Circuit established a three-part test for supervisory liability that has been cited over 1,750 times: (1) the supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that a subordinate was engaged in conduct posing a “pervasive and unreasonable risk” of constitutional injury; (2) the supervisor’s response was so inadequate as to show “deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of” the subordinate’s practices; and (3) there was an “affirmative causal link” between the supervisor’s inaction and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff.

The court emphasized that supervisory liability is not a form of vicarious liability or respondeat superior—which is prohibited under § 1983—but rather a theory of direct liability based on the supervisor’s own deliberate indifference. To satisfy the first element, a plaintiff can show either that the supervisor personally knew of the risk or that the risk was so obvious that a reasonable supervisor would have known. The “pervasive and unreasonable risk” can be established through evidence of prior incidents, complaints, or patterns of similar conduct.

For pro se litigants, Shaw v. Stroud is critical for understanding how to sue supervisors—chiefs, sheriffs, and commanders—who allow a culture of excessive force to persist. The three-part test gives plaintiffs a clear framework: gather evidence of prior complaints and incidents involving the same officers or department, show that supervisors were aware of the pattern, and demonstrate that their failure to act led to your injury. This case is particularly valuable because it allows accountability to reach beyond the individual officer who committed the violation.