MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, Jr., District Judge.

Plaintiff, a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed plaintiff's financial information, the Court assesses a partial initial filing fee of $1.00, which is twenty percent of his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).

Standard of Review

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a complaint must plead more than "legal conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of misconduct." Id. at 679. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.

The Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Steven Brouk, John Layton, and Donald Hale assaulted him while he was in handcuffs. He claims that defendant Alan Earls failed to properly investigate his grievance, that defendant Cindy Griffith failed to properly discipline Brouk, Layton, and Hale, and that defendant John Schneedle gave him a false conduct violation.

Discussion

The Court finds that plaintiff has stated a plausible claim against defendants Brouk, Layton, and Hale. As a result, the Court will order the Clerk to serve these defendants with process.

"Liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights." Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) ("Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution."); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995) ("a general responsibility for supervising the operations of a prison is insufficient to establish the personal involvement required to support liability."); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007) ("Only persons who cause or participate in the [constitutional] violations are responsible. Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation."); Glick v. Sargent, 696 F.2d 413, 414 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (allegations regarding false conduct violation failed to state a claim). Plaintiff has not pled facts showing that defendants Earls, Griffith, or Schneedle were directly involved in the assault. Therefore, the complaint fails to state a claim against these defendants.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No.2] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $1.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk, United States District Court," and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an original proceeding.1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve process on defendants Steven Brouk, John Layton, and Donald Hale pursuant to the Court's agreement with the Missouri Department of Corrections.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants John Schneedle, Cindy Griffith, and Alan Earls are DISMISSED without prejudice.

An Order of Partial Dismissal will be filed separately.