Supervisory liability under 42 USC § 1983; Claim based on defendants’ alleged failure to stop their subordinates (the Michigan State Police (MSP)) from enforcing unconstitutional provisions of the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA); Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged that defendants authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in any unconstitutional conduct; Distinguishing Peatross v City of Memphis

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs-Does’ § 1983 action against defendants-current and former Michigan governors and MSP directors, holding that plaintiffs failed to establish a supervisory liability claim where they did not plausibly allege that “defendants authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in any unconstitutional conduct.” Plaintiffs. five sex offenders, brought this class-action suit against defendants for damages, alleging that they oversaw and failed to stop the MSP from enforcing unconstitutional provisions of the Michigan SORA against them even though the provisions were declared unconstitutional by the federal courts. The district court dismissed the case based on, among other grounds, sovereign immunity. The court affirmed but on different grounds, explaining that it preferred to resolve the case on the merits. “To state a claim of supervisory liability under § 1983, plaintiffs must plausibly allege that a defendant ‘authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct . . . of his subordinates through the execution of his job functions.’” The court noted that each official could only be liable for their own misconduct, and not for a subordinate’s actions. The court considered the allegations that the MSP directors “acquiesced in or implicitly authorized” unconstitutional conduct and found them to be “wholly conclusory.” It then held that the allegations regarding a failure to instruct their subordinates were deficient where “alleging a mere failure to act, without more, is insufficient to state a claim of supervisory liability.” Plaintiffs alleged that “the governors were aware that their subordinates continued to enforce the invalidated portions of SORA, not least because the governors were subject to a ‘never-ending barrage of lawsuits.’” But this case was distinguishable “from Peatross, where the complaint alleged that the supervisor had been warned repeatedly of a pattern of constitutional violations.” Although the court did “not say that plaintiffs can never plausibly allege knowing acquiescence or deliberate indifference by pointing to a pattern of past or ongoing litigation[,]” the three cases plaintiffs cited in their complaint were insufficient.