Whether supervisors can be liable for constitutional violations of subordinates even without direct personal involvement

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Steven Banks was incarcerated in a prison where defendant Gore was the head physician and defendant Smith was the nurse manager. Mr. Banks is a diabetic in need of regular dialysis. In addition, while in prison, Mr. Banks suffered a severe concussion and needed medical treatment. The prison, and defendants specifically, did little to treat Mr. Banks’ concussion and regularly cancelled or shortened his dialysis, causing him great physical distress and suffering. Mr. Banks sued. The district court rejected his first two complaints because of their form. Mr. Banks then filed a second amended complaint, but Mr. Banks— who was still suffering severe neurological symptoms, who is not well educated, and whose repeated requests for appointed counsel were denied—did not appreciate that his second amended complaint would replace rather than supplement the earlier ones, so he did not replead the issues raised in his earlier complaints or reattach the evidence he had previously provided. The district court entered summary judgment, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court of appeals “declined to consider” the allegations that were not repled in the Second Amended complaint. On the merits, the panel found that defendants could not be liable because, while they knew about and oversaw Mr. Banks’ care, they contracted out much of it, which meant that they were not, in the Fourth Circuit’s view, sufficiently “personally involved.” This case presents two important questions that have split the lower courts. ii The questions presented are: 1. Can supervisors be liable for the constitutional violations of their subordinates even if the supervisor is not directly “personally involved”? 2. When courts construe a pro se plaintiffs amended complaint, are they required to consider all the plaintiffs filings together or can they look at only the most recently filed complaint?