if he does an affirmative act, participate’s in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d at 743 (citation omitted). “Moreover ... anyone who “causes” any citizen to be subjected to a constitutional deprivation is also liable.” Id. Thus, “[t]he requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.” Id. (citation omitted). See also Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 645 (9th Cir.1991) (citations and quotations omitted) (<HOLDING>); Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435,
holding that punitive damages may be awarded under  1983 when the defendants conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others holding that a supervisor with no personal involvement may be liable for the constitutional violation of a subordinate for culpable action or inaction in the training supervision or control of his subordinates acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation  or reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others holding officer liable for deprivation of constitutional rights despite argument that officer although present was not in control of the situation holding that individual liability under  1983 must be based on personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation holding that since the complaint set out a deliberate indifference claim it follows logically that reckless or callous indifference has been noticed