NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a0290n.06
No. 11-5732
UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T
SHANE DUA

N B RI GHT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. L ADONN A H. THO MPS ON; COOKI E CREW S; R ANDY WHI TE,
Def endants-A

ppellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Be fore : KEI TH, MARTI N, and GI BB ONS, Circuit J udg es.

P E R C UR I AM. Shane Duan Br ight, a pro se Kentucky prisoner, appea ls a district cou rt order dismiss ing his civil rig hts complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Br ight has moved for the appointment of c ounsel. Seeking monetary and injunctive relief , Br ight sued Kentucky Depa rtment of C o rre ctions Commi ssioner L aDonna H. Thompson, Kentucky State Reforma tory Warden Cook i e C rews, and Gre en River Correc tional Complex Warden Randy Whit e in their individual and officia l capa cities. Br ight alleg ed that s t at e funds intended for inmate education wer e misappropriate d and that the inmate cante en provider was price -g oug ing prisoners. Br ight further contende d that the defe ndants

re t al i at ed ag ainst him for filing g rieva nces and a lawsuit by placing him in administrati v e seg reg ation, and then transfe rring him from the Kentucky State Reforma tory t o t h e Gre en River Correc tional Compl ex. Brig ht alleg ed that the de fenda nts’ conduct violated his F irst Amendment rig hts. Br i gh t als o asser

ted that he was denied phy sical thera py afte r he was transfe rre d to Gre en River. The district c ourt sua sponte dismissed Br ight’ s complaint under 28 U .S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for f ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief ma y be g rante d.No. 11-5732 - 2 - On appe al, B rig ht arg ues t hat: 1) t he dis trict court erre d by failing to serve the defe ndants befor e sua sponte dismiss ing his complaint; 2) the district court err ed by sua sponte dismiss ing his complaint without first g ranting him leav e to amend; 3) the inmate cante en provider eng ag ed in price -g oug ing, depriving him of a proper ty interest in his commissary funds; 4) he was deprive d of his proper

ty interest in state funds for inmate education in violation of his due proce ss rig hts; 5) he

was denied phy sical thera

py for his plantar fasc iitis in violation of the Eig hth Amendment; 6) he was place d in administrative seg reg ation in reta liation for filing g rieva nces and a lawsuit in violation of the First Amendment; and 7) he was transfe rre d betwee n prisons in reta liation for filing g rieva nces and a la wsuit in viol ation of his First Amendme nt rig hts. The district cour

t’s order is reviewe d de novo. Hill v. Lappin , 630 F.3d 468, 470 ( 6th Cir. 2010). Section 1915A require s a district court to scre en and dismiss complaints that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be g rante d. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)( 1);

see also Grinter v. Knight , 532 F.3d 567, 572 (6th Cir. 2008). To avoid dismiss al, “a complaint must contain sufficient fac tual matter, acce pted as true, t o ‘state a claim t o relief that is plausible on its fac e.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Br ight arg ues that the district court err ed by failing to serve the defe ndants or g rant him leave
to amend befor e sua sponte dismiss ing his complaint. Distr i ct co urts must scre en prisoner complaints as soon as prac ticable and sua sponte dismiss those that, among other things, fail to state

a claim for relief

. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) (2)( B) , 1915A(b); McG ore v. W rigglesworth , 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997) ( overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199 (2007))

. The district court must dismiss a complaint without first aff ording a plaintiff leave to amend. Benson v. O’Brian , 179 F.3d 1014, 1015-16 (6th C i r. 1999). Such dismiss al may occur at any time, even befor e the de fenda

nts are se rved. 28 U .S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

. The district c ourt proper ly dismiss ed Br ight’ s claims for relief

. Br ight failed to plead fac ts alleg ing that the defe ndants—who serve in their supervisory capa cities—wer e persona lly involved in the events underly ing the suit in order to state plausible claims for relief

. See Grinter , 532 F.3dNo. 11-5732 - 3 -
at 575. These claims cannot be salvag ed un d er a t h eo ry of responde at superior beca use under section 1983 “[g]overnme nt officia ls may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates.” Iqbal , 129 S. Ct

. at 1 9 48. Rather, “a plaintiff must plead that eac h Gover nment-off

icial defe ndant, throug h the officia l’ s o wn individual actions, has violated the Constit ution.” Id. At t h e very least, the plaintiff must alleg e that the supervisors condoned,

encour ag ed, or knowing ly acquie sced in the alleg ed misconduct. Shehee v. Luttr ell , 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). Moreove r, “[s] upervisory liability under § 1983 cannot be based upon a mere failure to act but m ust be based upon active unconstituti onal beha vior.” Combs v. W ilkinson , 315 F.3d 548, 558 ( 6th Cir. 2002). Br ight f ailed to ade quately

satisfy these plea ding r equire ments. Br ight’ s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied and the district co u rt ’s o rd er is aff irmed.