
    Quintin QUALLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark LUTTRELL, Sheriff, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Shelby County, Tennessee; Correctional Medical Services; Joseph Ponte, in his official capacity as Director of Shelby County Jail; Gerald Stipanuck, in his personal and official capacity as a, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-5266.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    March 30, 2005.
    
      Lance R. Chism, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Dedriek Brittenum, Jr., Farris, Mathews, Branan, Bobango, Hellen & Dunlap, Memphis, TN, Jerry O. Potter, Karen L. Koplon, Hardison Law Firm, Memphis, TN, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before MERRITT and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; and DUPLANTIER, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Adrian G. Duplantier, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
    
   MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

In this prisoner civil rights case for “deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety” brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the District Court dismissed the case because the prisoner, who is complaining of spiders in his cell, failed to file a proper grievance at any step in the grievance process. On appeal, the prisoner has dismissed all parties to this case other than Sheriff Luttrell and Director Ponte, who were sued in their official capacities only, and who the prisoner claims were deliberately indifferent to his welfare because they knew the Shelby County Jail had a serious spider problem.

The two remaining defendants, Luttrell and Ponte, are named only in their official capacities and not in their individual capacities. The suit seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief. As to the prisoner’s claim for monetary damages, sovereign immunity bars a § 1983 suit for monetary damages against a prison official in his official capacity. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); Jarvis v. Marcum, 77 Fed.Appx. 308 (6th Cir.2003). That portion of the prisoner’s suit that seeks declaratory relief is now moot because the prisoner has been moved to another facility.

Therefore, the District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

L  