With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". R. 130, Ex. 20 (Zamiara/Berghuis Email). Zamiara also included a copy of the original screen that would have shown the markings from Chaffee that the prisoner had no major misconducts and was “manageable in Level II.” Rather than causing Berghuis to question the increase in security level, she “chewed out” Chaffee and instructed him to fix the screen. R. 171 (Trial Tr. I at 133:11-19; 147:24-148:3; 149:7-11). Although this was hardly an exemplary course of conduct, the record does not establish that this “fix” was necessary to maintain King’s security status at the higher level, or had any impact on his security level. As a result, we cannot say that Warden Berghuis’s actions constituted active participation in maintaining a constitutional violation. See Taylor, 69 F.3d at 81 (<HOLDING>) (citing Hill v. Marshall, 962 F.2d 1209 (6th

A: holding triable issue of whether supervisor could be liable for abandoning duties despite actual knowledge of breakdown in proper procedures by department
B: holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation
C: recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge
D: holding that a supervisor was not similarly situated to another supervisor with the same title where the former could not perform the latters duties
A.