United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed
plaintiffs 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. §
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.
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.
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
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
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in
forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
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.
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.
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants John Schneedle, Cindy
Griffith, and Alan ...