that her constitutional injury resulted from the direct acts or omissions of the official, or from indirect conduct that amounts to condonation or tacit authorization .... ” Rodríguez-García v. Miranda-Marin, 610 F.3d 756, 768 (1st Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A plaintiff can either show that the particular defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his or her rights, or can indirectly show that defendant “set[ ] in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause other to inflict the constitutional injury.” Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo, 590 F.3d 31, 51 (1st Cir.2009) (quoting Gutierrez-Rodriguez, 882 F.2d at 561); see also Penalbert-Rosa v. Fortufio-Burset, 631 F.3d 592, 594-95 (1st Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Defendants maintain Plaintiffs have failed to
holding that witness was not an accomplice in distributing marijuana to himself holding a named defendant could be someone that participatedeither as a perpetrator  or an accomplice  in the decision to dismiss plaintiffs holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment holding that the district courts decision to dismiss will be affirmed unless it has abused its discretion holding that appellants could have amended as of right after they received the motion to dismiss and prior to the trial courts decision