taken directly by her. See Boyd, 47 F.3d at 968 (supervisor may not incur liability on theory of respondeat superior; “supervisor must know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a blind eye” to it (internal quotation and citation omitted)). Next, Cooper’s allegations against corrections officers N. Earn, Mark Major, William Hughes, and M. Hunter— that Earn shut off his water for five days and the others threatened his safety, all because he used the prison grievance system — are sufficient to state a retaliation claim. See Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir.1990) (otherwise proper acts are actionable under § 1983 if taken in retaliation for exercise of constitutionally protected right); Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Hudspeth v. Figgins, 584 F.2d 1345, 1348 (4th
recognizing first amendment petition right where inmate alleged retaliation for filing grievances recognizing right to petition for redress of grievances under established prison grievance system holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials holding that filing of a disciplinary charge becomes actionable if done in retaliation for the inmates filing of a grievance and stating that such conduct strikes at the heart of an inmates constitutional right to seek redress of grievances recognizing that prisoners undoubtedly exercise first amendment petition right when filing grievances and stating that prison officials may not retaliate against prisoners for filing grievances