appear nowhere else in the complaint, therefore no facts are alleged linking them to the alleged violations. Further, the plaintiffs’ causes of action themselves do not specify these individuals as supervisors properly liable under section 1983; the causes of action merely assign supervisory liability to “Superintendent Pedro Toledo Davila and other supervisory defendants ... ”. (Docket No. 1 at 16) As to those defendants whose supervisory liability is alleged only as a consequence of job title and a vague reference to “other” supervisory defendants in the listed causes of action, the plaintiffs’ pleadings have asserted nothing but legal conclusions, and are therefore insufficient to sustain the claims of supervisory liability. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, — U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 1950 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, all claims against defendants
holding that affidavit in support of summary judgment may not be based upon factual conclusion or conclusions of law holding that while legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint they must be wellsupported by factual allegations holding that factual conclusions of sentencing court which must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence are reviewed for clear error holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment holding that a court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged