Opinion ID: 221938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Level Of Jackson's Personal Involvement

Text: The district court dismissed all claims against Warden Jackson on the ground that Siggers has not alleged sufficient personal involvement by Jackson. Specifically, the district court first correctly noted that a § 1983 claim may not be based on respondeat superior liability; instead, the supervisory official at least [must have] implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate. Doc. 46 (Opinion and Order at 10-11) (quoting Taylor v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 69 F.3d 76, 81 (6th Cir.1995) (citation and quotation marks omitted)). The district court also stated that a mere failure to act is not enough; the supervisors must have actively engaged in unconstitutional behavior. Id. at 11 (quoting Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 751 (6th Cir.2006) (citation and quotation marks omitted)). The district court then considered Jackson's alleged involvement, namely that he told Siggers on September 24, 2006 that he agreed with Campbell's decision, but that Siggers should file a grievance if he desired clarification. Id. In the district court's view, whatever approval of Campbell's actions Jackson may have indicated was rendered insufficient to meet the requirements of § 1983 because of the fact that he recommended that Siggers file a grievance for clarification. Id. Siggers claims now that Jackson's involvement is shown by the fact that, despite his awareness of Campbell's actions and Siggers's concerns, Jackson disregarded and failed to remedy the allegedly unlawful actions and thereby encouraged them by failing to act on information indicat[ing] that unconstitutional acts were occurring. Siggers Br. at 18 (citations and quotation marks omitted; alteration in original). This argument has no merit. As the district court stated, Jackson suggested to Siggers on September 24, 2006, that Siggers file a grievance. Consequently, Jackson actually encouraged Siggers to pursue the proper remedy. Furthermore, Jackson's alleged approval of Campbell's two Notices does not qualify as active[] engage[ment] in unconstitutional behavior because even though it may show that Jackson applied P.D. 04.07.112 incorrectly, it certainly does not show that he did so to retaliate against Siggers, which is the key to the constitutional violation asserted by Siggers. We therefore reject this argument.