Court overruled or limited Farmer. See Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118, 132 S.Ct. 617, 625, 181 L.Ed.2d 606 (2012) (noting Farmer’s deliberate indifference standard). Vance, as well, has no direct application to this case. Vance concerned the possibility of holding the cabinet, secretary of a federal department responsible for the implementation of policy at the individual level—a far cry from holding the administrator of a single facility liable for known deficiencies that directly threatened the welfare of prisoners for whom he was responsible. See 730 ILCS 5/3-6-2 (“A chief administrative officer shall bé responsible for all persons assigned to the institution or facility.”). Vance did not alter—nor could it alter—the v. Barkes, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2042, 192 L.Ed.2d 78 (2015) (<HOLDING>); see also Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060
holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity holding that plaintiffs complaint stated a claim for a constitutional deprivation but that the contours of the right at issue were not clearly established and that official was therefore entitled to qualified immunity holding that if official has violated clearly established law he is entitled to qualified immunity only if reasonable official could have believed conduct was lawful holding that defendants were entitled to official immunity and not addressing the merits holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity