quotations omitted). Likewise, a supervisor may be liable for the actions of subordinates if the supervisor had knowledge of violations and failed to act to prevent them. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989). To state a claim for supervisory liability, a Section 1983 plaintiff must establish a causal connection between a supervisor’s act or omission and his constitutional deprivation. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-4 (9th Cir.1978) (discussing the causality requirement for those defendants that do not personally participate in the constitutional deprivation). In the Eighth Amendment context, a supervisor is liable for deliberate indifference when his or her policies constitute a moving force behind an inmate’s constitutional infringement. Redman, 942 F.2d at 1447-8 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff claims that Superintendent Moore
holding that a supervisor was not similarly situated to another supervisor with the same title where the former could not perform the latters duties holding that a supervisor could be found liable for deficient policies in response to prison overcrowding which posed a serious safety risk to inmate personal security holding a sheriff could not be liable for implementing county policies where no underlying violation of decedents rights had occurred holding plaintiffs supervisor subject to suit holding that a potential prison sentence of up to five years was clearly serious