NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 13a0027n.06 No. 12-5671 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T DARREL LJ AMES PARKS , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MR. REANS; M R. DAVI S; V. BARNETT; J OHN DO E; MRS . GREGORY; ERI C D. WI L SON, Warden, Def endants-A

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

Be fore : MERRI TT, MARTI N, and GI L MAN, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM. Dar

rell J ames Parks, a pro se fede ral prisoner, appea ls a district court judgme nt dismiss ing his civil ri gh t s co mplaint construed as being filed pursuant to the doctrine

announce d in Bivens v. S i x Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Seeking monetary , injunctive, and declaratory relief , Parks s ued the former Warden of the United States Penitentiary -McCre ary (US P-McCrea ry ), Eric D. Wil son; two USP-McCrear y

corr ectional office rs, Mr. Reans and Mr. Davis; a clinical nurse, V. Ba rnett; a USP-McCrear

y Hea lth Service Administrator, Mrs. Gre g ory ; and a Speci a l I n v e s ti g a ti ons Service s office r, “John Doe.” The defe ndant s we re sued only in their officia l capa cities. Parks alleg ed that, while he was housed at USP-McCrear

y , his shoulder, arm, and wrist wer e injured by Reans while he was being escor ted back to his ce ll in October 2009. Parks stated that a scuff le ensued when he arr ived at his cell. Reans alleg edly order ed Parks to place his hand-c uffe d wrists throug h the food slot door so the hand-No. 12-5671 - 2 - cuff s could be remove d. Parks alleg ed that he complied, but Reans violently y anked the hand-c uffs from his w rist a s Davis was c losing the c ell door. Parks a lso a lleg ed that he repor ted the incident, but that the inv es t i gat i ve office r told him that the video footag e of the incident was no longe r available , resulting in an incomplete investigation of the alleg ed injuries. Finally , Parks alleg ed that Wil son, Ba

rnett, and McCrea

ry fail ed t o en s u re that he rec eived proper medical treatment for his injuries. Parks alleg ed that the defe ndants violated his Eig hth Amendment rig ht to be fre e from crue l and unusual punishment; his rig ht to adequate medical treatment; and his due proce ss rig hts. Parks was subseque ntly

transfe rre d to a diffe rent fa cility

. The district court scre ened Parks’s complaint and conclude d that the complaint was subject to dismiss al for fa ilure to state a claim upon which relief may be g rante d. The district court deter mined that Parks’s claims for monetary relief ag ainst the defe ndants in their officia l capa cities

wer e barr ed by t h e d o ct ri ne of sovere ign immunit y , and that his reque sts for injunctive and decla ratory relief wer e moot beca use h e h ad been transfe rre d to a differ ent fac ility

. Parks filed a motion to alt er o r amend the judgme nt and a notice of appea l. The district court denied Parks’s motion to alter the judg ment. On appea l, Parks argues that the district court er re d by dismiss ing his complaint based on

sovere ign immunit y without aff ordi n g h i m an opportunity to amend his complaint to sue the defe ndants in their individual capa cities; by d i s m issing his complaint on the basis of sovere ign immunit y beca

use it is an aff

irmative defe nse; and by di s m i s s i n g h i s reque sts for injunctive and decla ratory relief beca use such r elief is not bar

red by sovere ign immunity

. The district court’s decision is revie wed de novo. Hill v. Lappin , 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010); Grinter v. Knight , 532 F.3d 567, 571–72 ( 6th Cir. 2008)

. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) a

nd 1915A, district courts are require d to “to scre en and dismiss complaints that are frivolous or malicious, that fail t o state a claim upon which relief may be gra nted, or that seek monetary relief from a de fenda

nt who is imm une fr om such relief .” Grinter , 532 F.3d at 572.No. 12-5671 - 3 - The district cour

t properly conclude d that Parks’s Bivens claims ag ainst the named f eder al defe ndants, in their officia l capa cities, are barr ed by sovere ign i m m u n i t y . The United States “is immune from suit save as it consents t o b e sued.” United States v. Sherwood , 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941); see also Munaco v. United States , 522 F.3d 651, 652–53 (6th Cir. 2008). The United States has not waived immunit y to Bivens -ty pe act i o n s . F

DIC v. Mey er , 510 U.S. 471, 483–86 (1994); Nuclear Transp. & Storage, Inc. v. United States , 890 F.2d 1348, 1352 (6th Cir. 1989). Sovereig n immunit y extends to Un i t ed States officia ls who are sued in their officia l capa cities. Toledo v. Jack son , 485 F.3d 836, 838 (6th Cir. 2007). Contrary to Parks’s arg ument, the district court did not

err by sua sponte dismiss ing his complaint based on sovere ign immunit y beca use the issue was clea

r from the fac e of the complaint that Parks was suing the defe ndants only in their officia l capa cities. The Prisoner L itigation Reform Act require s sua sponte dismiss al wher e a prisoner seeks monetary relief from an immune of

ficial. See G rinter , 532 F.3d at 572 (quoting 28 U .S.C. § 1915A(b)). The district court was also not require d to aff ord Parks an opportunity to amend his comp laint befor e sua sponte dismiss ing the complaint. When a co m p l ai n t is subjected to scre ening , “the district courts are not to permit plaintiffs to amend a complaint to av o i d d i s m i ssal” under section 1915(e ) and se ction 1915A. Benson v. O ’Brian , 179 F.3d 1014, 1016 ( 6th Cir. 1999). Finally , the district court prope rly dismiss ed Parks’ s reque st for injunctive and decla ratory relief

. Parks complains of incidents that occur red at USP-McCrear

y . Howeve r, he was subsequently transfe rre d to a differ ent fac ility

. A prisoner’ s reque st for injunctive and decla ratory relief is moot

u p on his transfe r t o a differe nt fac ility

. See Kensu v. Haigh , 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ). I f Parks is being denied ne cessa ry medical c are at his curr ent fa cility , he may ref ile his claim. The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.