## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3561 B REW STER M C C AULEY, as Spe cial A d m inistrator ofthe Estate o fM er sai des M cCaule y, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v.
C ITY OF C HI CAGO, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C2604

—A my J . St . E ve, Judge .
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 15, 2010

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 20, 2011

Befo re M A NI ON, S YKES, an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . M er sai des M cCaule y was sho t an d k i l l e d b y h e r e x -b o y fr i e n d G l e n f o r d Ma r t i n e z a s s he l eft the par ki ng lot o fherchurch in Chicag o. M ar ti nez th en turn ed the gu n on him self. A t th e tim e of th e m urd ersui ci de , Mar t i ne z wa s o n pa r o l e f o r a n e a r l i e r h o mi c i de and had a hi sto ryo fhar ass i ng an d assaul ti ng M cCaule y2 N o. 09

- 3561 i n vi o l a t i o n o fh i s p a r o l e a nd a c o ur to r de r o fp r o t ecti on i ss ue d o n h erb eh al f

. Chi ca g o l aw- en f o r ce m en t an d I l l i noi s co rr ection s offi ci al s were aw ar e o fthes e v i ol ati ons and c oul d hav e ensure d that M ar tin ez was detai ned w i thout bai l, but they nei ther i ssued a p ar ol evi o l at i o n war r an t no r a r r es te d hi m f o r v i o l atingthe o r dero fpr o te ct i o n. A fterM er sai des’ s death, herf ather, BrewsterM cCaule y, as ad m inistrator of he r estate, fil ed suit in state cou rt ag ai nst the Ci ty ofChica go and seve ra l o fi ts offi ci al s, the I l l i noi s Depart m ent o fCor re cti ons ( “I DO C”) an d i ts dir ecto r, and M ar ti nez’ s e sta te. The com pla i nt al l ege d 13 separ ate federa l and sta te cl ai m s forr el i ef; tho se re l evant here ar e e qual- protecti on cl ai m s a gainst the Ci ty of Ch icago and the IDO C director. The ci ty and st ate defendants r em ove d the ca se to f ede r a l c o u r ta n d p r o mpt l y mo v e d t o d i s mi s s . T he dis t r i c t c o ur t g r a nt e d the mot i o n. Th e c o ur t he l d t hat fem al e v i cti m s o fdom est i c vi olen c e are nota “suspect” or“pro tect ed” cl ass f orpurpo ses o fequal

- prot ecti on anal ys is, so M cCaule y’ s e qual- prot ecti on cl ai m ag ai nst th e C ity failed as a m at te r of la w . T h e c o u rtals o h eld that M c C au l ey’ s cl ai m ag ai nst the I DO C d i re cto r w as b ar re d by the El eve nth A m endm ent b ecause the c laim so u gh t dam age s fro m the dir ecto r i n hi s o ffi ci alcapaci ty. M cC au ley a s k ed f or l eave to cond uc t li m ited d iscovery int h e h op e o f find in g a ba sis for a p er so n al-c ap ac ity eq u alprot ecti on cl ai m ag ain st the I DO C d i re cto r. The di st r i c tc o ur tde ni e d thi s r e qu e s t
. McC a ul e y a pp e a l e d. We a ffi r m, a l th o u g h o n d i ffe r e n tg r o u n d s . T h e c o mp lain t d oe s n otp lau sib ly st at e a p olic y-o r-p ra c tic e e q u al-N o. 09

- 3561 3 p ro te c tio n cla im ag ain st th e C ity . I t c on ta in s o n ly ge n er alize d alle ga tio n s th at th e C ity faile d to h av e s p e c i fic pol i ci es i n effect to prot ect vi cti m s o fdom est i c vi ol ence fro m h ar m inflic te d by th os e w h o v iola t e th eir p ar ole or cour t or ders of prot ecti on byco m m i tting ac ts ofdom esti c viol en ce . The c o m pl ainta l l eg es , i n e ss en ce , tha t th e Cityf ai l ed to singl e o ut dom est i c- vi ol ence vi cti m s a s a class for s pe ci al p ro te c ti o n , n otth at th e C ity d en ied th is cl ass o fvi cti m s e q ual pr o te ct i o n. M c C au ley d oe s n otc o n t es t t h e d ism iss al of h is e q u alprot ec tion cl ai m ag ai nst the I DO C d i re cto r i n hi s o ffi ci al capaci ty, but he d oes se ek re vi ew o fthe cour t’ s deni alo f hi s r equest for lim i ted di sco ver y forthe pu rpos e o f fi nd i ng a basi s fora perso n al-capacity c l ai m . A t o ra l ar g um en t, ho wev er, M cCa ul ey ’ s co un sela dm i tt ed he ha d no r ea so n t o bel i ev e th e I DOC di r ec to r ha d a ny perso nal i nvol vem ent in supervi si ng M ar tinez’ s par ol e, let al one any of the eve nt s leadin g to M ersaid es’s death. A ccor dingl y, the d istr i ct c ourtpro perl y deni ed the r equest f orRule 12 ( b) ( 6) di sco ver y.

I . B a c kg r o und I n 1 99 3 M ar ti nez was c o nv i ct ed o fmurde r a nd at te m pte d m ur d er a nd s en te nc ed to 2 8 y ea r s i n pr i so n. H e w as released i n 20 06 an d pla c e d o n m an d atory su p ervi sed r el eas e forthr ee yea rs . In N ove m ber20 07 M ar ti nez w as ar re ste d and charge d w i th dom est ic b att er y for alle ge d ly c h ok in g M er sa id es M c C au ley , hi s f or m er girlf r i e nd , un t i l s he l o s t c o ns c i o us ne s s . Two da y s l a ter an I l l i noi s s tat e co urt enter ed an em er gencyo rdero fpro -4 N o. 09

- 3561 tect i on a gainst M ar ti nez o n b ehal fo fM er sai des. Later that m onth the co urt i ssued a ple naryo rdero f pro tecti o n. Bo tho r der s pr o hibi te d M ar tine z fr o m ha vinga ny conta ct with M er sai des. O n t wo s epa r at e o cc as i o ns , the Co o kCo unty S tate’s A tto rney ’s Offi ce info rm ed M ar ti nez’ s par ol e o ffi cerat I DO C ofthe batt er y c harg e an d a rrest. The ar re st w as a paro l e vi ol ati on and s ubj ecte d M ar ti nez to im m edi ate detenti on w ithout bai l unti l hi s t ri alo n the dom est i cbatt er y c harg e. Despit e hav i ng r ecei ved thi s info rm ati on, no one at I DO C everi ssued a parole-v i ol ati on w ar ra n t a ga in st M ar tin ez . A fte r h is re lea se o n b ail, M ar tine z co nt in ue d t o c o nt ac t M er sa i des , r epe at edl y v i o l at i ng th e o r d er s o f p ro te c tio n . Th e c om p lain t a lleg es th at C h icago pol i ce were aware ofthes e v i ol ati ons but neve r ar re ste d M ar ti nez. T h at M ar tin ez rem ain ed a fre e m an en d ed tra g ica lly f orM er sai des. A s s he was l eaving a c h u rch ser vi ce o n th e e veni ng o fA pri l 6, 20 08, M ar ti nez bl ock ed her veh icle w i th hi s o w n, tr apping her i n the church parking l ot. H e s hot her m u lti ple ti m es, and she die d of th e g uns ho t wounds 3 0 m i nut es l at er . A fterl ea ving th e s c e n e , Ma r t i n e z t u r n e d th e g u n o n h i ms e l f a nd c o mm i tte d sui ci de. M er sa id es ’s fa th er , B re w st er M c C au ley , fi led th is s u it as s pec i ala dm i ni st r at o r o fhi s daught er ’ s es ta te
. The c om p lain t a lleg ed 13 fed er al a n d st at e c laim s (p rim ar ily f o r de pr i va ti o n o fdue pr o ce ss a nd e qua l pr o te ct i o n, a nd f o r wro ng fuld eath) a g ains t th e Ci tyo fChi ca g o a nd un i de nt i fi e d C hi c a g o p o l i c e o ffi c e r s , I DOC , v a r i o us I DOCN o. 09

- 3561 5 offici als, then -ID O C D ir e c t o r R o g e r W a lk e r, a n d M a r t inez’s es ta te
. The ci ty and stat e defendants r em ove d the ca se to fed er al c ou rtan d m ov ed to d i s m i s s p u rs u an t t o R u le 12 ( b) ( 6) o fthe F ede r alRul es o fCi vi l Pr o ce dur e. The dist ri ct cour t gr anted the m oti on, dism i sse d th e fe deral cl ai m s, and de c li ned to exer ci se supp l em entalj uri sdic

tio n ov er th e s t at e-la w cla im s. See 28 U
. S. C

. § 1367(c)(3); Ha nsen v. B d. o

f Trs. o f Ha m ilto n S e. Sc h. C o rp., 551 F. 3d 599, 607 (7th C ir. 2008). Onl y the e qua l

- pr o tec ti o n c l ai m s ag ains t th e Ci tya nd W al kerar e a t i ssue on a pp eal

. The cl ai m ag ai nst the Ci ty w as a p oli cy-or-prac tice clai m un d er M onell v. D epart

m e ntof So ci al Se r vic es, 4 3 6 U
. S

. 6 5 8 , 6 9 4 ( 1 9 7 8 )
. T h e c o mpla i nt va ri ousl y a l l ege s that the Ci ty f ai l ed to h ave adeq u at e p olic ies in p lac e fo r th e p ro te c tio n of fem ale vic tim s o f d om es t i c vio len c e. T h e c ou rtbe ga n its an aly sis ofthi s cl ai m byr ej ectin g M c Cauley ’ s co ntenti on that fem al e v i cti m s o fdom est i c vi ol ence ar e a “s uspect cl ass ” f orequal-p ro tect i on purpose s. The j ud ge opted f or ra tio n al-b as is re vie w an d th en co n c lu d ed th at to av oid dism i ssa l, M cCaule y nee ded t o show that M er sai des w as a m em ber of a prot ecte d c l ass . N oting tha t “ prot ecte d c las s” an d “s u sp ec t c l a ss ” m ea n th e s am e t h in g in eq u alprot ecti on doct rine, the j ud ge hel d that M cCaule y c ou ld n otes ta b lish a n ec es sa ry p re re q u isit e fo r a c laim und er the Eq ual Pro tect i on Clause ; that i s, be c au se M er sai des di d not be l ong to a su sp ect cl ass , she did not belong to a protec ted class either. T ha t m ean t, th e cou rt hel d, that M cCaule y c oul d not s ati sfy the fi rs t r equi re m en t o fa pr i m a f ac i e ca se o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n unde r the Equa l Pr o te ct i o n Cl au se . F i na l l y, the c ou r t he l d tha t th e6 N o. 09

- 3561

com plain t f ai l ed to st ate a “cl ass o fo ne” e qual- prot ecti on cl ai m ag ai nst the Ci ty. As f o r the c l ai m a g ains t I DOC Di r ec torW al k er, the d istri ct cou rt held that the E le v en th A m en d m en t’s sov er ei gn- i m m unity pr ote cti ons bar re d M cCaule y fro m rec ove ring dam age s a gainst hi m i n hi s o ffi ci alcapaci ty. See B d. o f Trs. o f U niv . of A la . v. Ga rrett, 531 U
. S. 35 6, 36 3 (20 01 ); P eirickv. I U P U IA thl etics D ep’t, 510 F. 3d 681, 69 5 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); Jo seph v . B d

. o f R egen ts of th e U niv . of Wis. Sy s., 43 2 F
. 3d 74 6, 748 ( 7th Ci r . 20 05 )
. M cCa ul eya sk ed th e c o u r t for a lim ite d op p or tu n ity to co n d u c t d isc ov er y in an eff or t to fi nd a f actual basi s f ora p ersonal

- capaci ty cl ai m ag ai nst W al ker

. The co urt denie d thi s r equest, ess enti al l y ho l ding that i t would be futi le. Because M cCaule y’ s e qual- prot ecti on cl ai m ag ai nst th e Ci ty f ai l ed as a m at te r ofl aw , the cour t thought a ny si m i l ar c laim ag ain st W alk er in h is p e r so n al c ap ac ity w ou ld fail as w ell.

I I . Discussi on A . M cC au ley’s Eq u al-Protection C laim A gain st the City W e r ev i ew de n o vo the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s o r derdi smi ss i ng the equal

- prot ecti on cl ai m against the Ci ty. B roo ks v. R o ss , 57 8 F .3d 57 4 , 57 8 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). To av oid d ism iss al, M cCaule y’ s co m pla i nt m ust co ntai n alle gat i ons that

“ ‘st at e a cla im to reli e ft h at is p lau sib le on its fac e.’ ” A shc rof t v. Iqbal, 1 2 9 S

. Ct

. 1 9 3 7, 1 9 4 9 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( quo ti ng B el l A tl

. Co rp. v. Tw om bly, 550 U .S

. 54 4, 57 0 (2 00 7)). “A cla im has f aci alpl ausibi l i ty w hen the pla i nti ffpl eads f actualN o. 09

- 3561 7

c on te n t t h at allow s t h e c ou rtto d ra w th e re as on ab le in fer ence that the defendant i s l i abl e forthe m i sco nd uct al l ege d.” Id. W e note fir st that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s a nal ysi s o f Mc C a u l e y ’ s c l a i m a g a i n s tth e C i t y su f fe r s fr o m s o me an al y ti ca l c o nfus i o n; i t co nfl at es s ev er aldi st i nc t str ains ofequ al- prot ecti on doct rine. The co urt bega n by hol ding that str i ct s crutiny di d n ot a p plybec ause fem al e v i cti m s o fdom est i c vi ol ence ar e no t a “s uspect cl as s” f o r pur po ses ofe qua l

- pr o te ct i o n a na l y si s. The co ur t th en o pte d f o r r at i o na l

-ba si s r ev iew , b y pas sing any for m o fi nter m edi ate scruti ny. The judge the n to ok a deto ur in to t he cas el aw thatappli es to cl ai m s o fdi scri m i nati on in publi c em plo ym ent under the EqualPro

tect i on Cl ause, ci tin g B row n v . B ud z, 398 F. 3d 904, 91 6 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) , a nd Sa la s v. Wisco nsin D epa rtm ent o f C o rr e c t i o n s, 4 9 3 F
. 3 d 9 1 3 , 9 2 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , f o r the e l em en ts o fa pr i m a f ac i e ca se unde r the b ur den

- sh i fting approach bor ro w ed fro m T i tl e VII
. U si ng this fra m ew or k, the c ourthel d that b ecause fem al e d om est i c- vi ol ence vi cti m s a re n ot a prot ecte d cl ass , M cCaule y c oul d not est abl i sh the fi rs t r equi re m ent o fa pri m a f aci e ca se of di sc r i m i na ti o n. F i na ll y, th e co ur t he l d tha t be ca us e th e eq ua l-p rotection clai m w as p rem ised on M ersaid es’s g r o up affi l i at i o n as a vi ct i m o f do m es ti c vi o l ence, th e c om p lain t d id n otst at e a cla im for a “c las s o fo n e” eq u alp ro te c tio n vio lat ion
. Se ege ne r al l y, Vi l l

. of Wi l l owbrook v. O lech, 52 8 U .S

. 56 2, 56 4 ( 2000 ) ( re cogni zi ng a “cl ass o f on e” eq u al-p ro te c tio n cla im ); Srai l v. Vil l

. of Li s l e, Ill., 588 F. 3d 940, 94 3- 44 ( 7th Ci r. 200 9) (d i scussing the el em ents of a “class of one” claim ).8 N o. 09

- 3561

W e n ot e f orc ompl e t e ne s s thatM cCa ul e y m a ke s a l t e r na t i ve 1 a r g u me n t s o n th i s p o i n t
. H e fi r s ta r g u e s th a tfe ma l e v i c t i ms of d om estic v i o lenc e ou g ht to b e reco g niz ed as a susp ect class f or e qua l

- pro t ec t i on ana l ys i s , requ i ri ng s t ri c ts c ru t i ny o fthe C ity’s acti o ns. H e arg u es in the altern ativ e tha t the claim s houl d be trea ted a s m or e ge ne ra l l y a l l eg i ng di s c ri m i nat i on on t he ba s i s o fg e nd e r , whi c h c a l l s f orthe a ppl i c a t i ono fi nter
m ed ia te scr u tin y . S ee U n ited S tates v . Virgin ia , 518 U.S. 515, 5 3 1 (19 9 6 ). This anal ysi s i s probl em at i c f orse ver alr eas ons. Fo r sta rt er s, anal yzing the equal

- prot ecti on cl ai m under cl ass o f

- o ne do ct r i ne w as er r o r . Thi s i s no t a cl as s- o f

- o ne case ; M cCaule y ha s neverco ntended that i t i s. N or i s the bur den-shi fti ng pri m a f ac i e ca se m etho dol ogy ap p ro p ria te h er e. T h at form u la h as be en u s e d in emp loy m en t- di sc r i m i na ti o n c l ai m s ar i singunde r the E q u al Pr ot ec tio n C lau se or 42 U .S.C

. § 19 81 be c au se eq u alp r o t e c t i o n c l a i ms a l l e g i n gd i s c r i mi n a t i o n i n p u b l i c e mp loy m en t c an be an a l o g ize d to cla im s u n d er T itle V II. Im p or tin g t h e p rim a fac ie c as e re q u ire m en ts from T itle VI Ido ct r i ne make s se ns e i n the pu bl i c- empl o y m en t con t e x t, bu t tha t ap p roach doe s not ap p ly m ore b ro ad l y t o al l equal

- prot ecti on ca ses . Final l y, wh ether femal e do m es ti c- vi o l en ce v i ct i m s ar e pro per l y c o nsi dered a “suspect” o r “pro tect ed” cl ass f orequal

- prot ection an alysis is a m e r it s q ue stion. Th e ans w er de term i ne s whatl ev elo fj udi ci alr ev i ew a ppl i es t o the de fen d an t’s ac tio n s, see, e.g., Sra il, 588 F.3d at 943 , a questi on no t no r m al l y a ppr o pr i at e f o r r e s o l ut i o n a t th e ple ading s s tag e. 1N o. 09

- 3561 9 Tho ug h the di st r i ctc o urt ’ s an al y si s was f au l ty, the eq u al-p ro te c tio n cla im ag ain st th e C ity w as p ro p er ly dism i sse d. To st ate a M onell cl ai m ag ai nst the Ci ty f or vi o l ati on o fM er sa i des ’ s r i g htt o e qua l pr o te ct i o n, M cC au l ey w as re quir ed to “pl ead[ ] f actualco ntent that al l ows the c ourt t o draw the re aso nabl e infe re nce” that th e Ci tymai nt aine d a po l i cy, c us to m , o r pr ac ti ce o fi ntenti onaldiscri m i nati on a gainst a cl ass o fper sons to w h ich M er sa id es be lon ge d

. Se eIq b al , 12 9 S

. Ct. at19 49; M o n e ll, 43 6 U .S. at 6 94 ; Srail, 5 8 8 F
. 3 d a t 9 4 3
. He di d not m ee t th i s bur den

. I n r ev i ewi ngthe su ffi ci en cyo fa c o m pl aintunde r the pl au sibi l i tyst an dar d anno unc ed i n Tw om b l y a nd Iq b al , we accep t the wel l

- ple aded fa cts i n the com pla i nt as tr ue, b u t le ga l co n c lu sio n s a n d c on c lu so ry alleg at ion s m er ely re ci ti ng the el em ents of the c l ai m ar e no t e nti tl ed to th is p r e s u m p t i on of tr u th

. Iq b al , 12 9 S

. Ct. at19 51. A fter ex ci singthe a l le g at i o ns no t en ti tl ed to the pr es um pti o n, w e dete rm i n e w hetherthe re m ai ni ng f actualal l ega ti ons “pl ausibl y sugge st an enti tl em ent to relief

. ” Id. The “[ f ] ac tu ala l l eg at i o ns m ust be e no ug h t o r ai se a r i g ht to relie f ab ov e t h e s p ec u lat ive lev el.” Tw o m bly, 550 U
. S. at5 55
. Tha t i s, the c o m p lai nt mustc o nt ain “ al l eg at i o ns pla usibl y s ugges ti ng ( not m er el y c onsi ste nt with) ” a n enti tl em ent t o re l ief. Id. at 557. I fthe al l ega ti ons gi ve ri se t o a n “ o b v i o us a l t e r na t i v e e xp l a na t i o n, ” Iq b a l, 129 S. Ct. at 19 51 ; Tw om bly, 5 50 U. S

. a t 56 7, the n the c o m pl aint m ay“ st o p[ ] s ho r t o fthe lin e be twe enpo ss ibi l i tya nd pla usibi l i ty of ‘enti tl e[ m ent] to r el i ef, ’ ” Tw o m bly, 550 U
. S. at5 57
. M ak i ngthe pl au sibi l i tyde te r m i na tio n i s “a c o ntext- speci fic task that r equi re s the r evi ew i ng co urt to10 N o. 09

- 3561 d ra w on its j u d icia l ex p er ien c e a n d co m m on se n se .” Iq b al , 12 9 S

. Ct. at19 50. W e h a v e i nt e r pr e t e d Tw o m bly a nd Iq b al t o r equi r e th e p lai nt iff to “p rovid[e] som e s p e cifi c facts” to su p p ort th e le ga l cla im s a ss er te d in th e c om p lain t. Brooks , 5 78 F. 3d at 581. The degr ee ofspeci fi ci ty re quir ed i s no t eas i l y quanti fi ed, but “the pla i nti ff m ust give enough det ai l s ab o utthe s ubj ec t- m at te r o fthe c as e to pr es ent a s tory that ho l ds to gether. ” S wan s on v. Ci t i b an k, N. A. , 61 4 F. 3d 400, 40 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. The r equi re d l ev elo f f a c t u a l s p e c i fi c i t y r i s e s w i th th e c o m p l e x i t y o fth e c l a i m. Id. a t 4 0 5 ( “A m ore com p lex case

. . . w il l requ ire m ore detai l, bo th t o give the opposi ng par ty noti ce o fwh at th e case is a ll a b o u t a nd to show how , i n th e plaintiff’s m ind at l east, the d ots sh ou ld be con ne cted

. ”). Brooks a nd Swans on he lp il lustra t e the f actu al heft requ ired to su rvive a m otion to d ism iss after Tw om bly a nd Iq b al

. In Brooks the pla i nti ffwas pros ecuted f or offi ci alm i sco nd uct and w i re frau d rel ating to hi s duti es a s a P r i s o n R e v i e w B o a r d me mb e r . 5 7 8 F
. 3 d a t5 7 8
. He was a cqui tt ed o n the se char g es a nd fi l ed su i t al l eg i ng a vast conspir acy by fel l ow boar d m em ber s, a sta te p olic e o ffice r, an ID O C em p loy ee , a n d th e Illino is A tto rneyGenera l bas ed on thei r p ar tici pati on in orco op er at ion w ith th e in ve st iga tio n ag ain st h im
. Id. The co m pl ainta l l eg ed th atthe de fen dan ts “ k no wi ng l y, i nt en ti onal l y[ , ] and m al i ci ousl y pr ose cute[d ]” hi m i n re tal i ati on f or h i s e xerci se ofco nsti tuti onal l y pr ote cted r i ghts. Id. at5 82
. W e he l d tha t th i s was “ no th i ngmor e” tha n a “fo r m ul ai c r ec i ta ti o n o fthe c ause o fa ct i o n, ” i ns uffi ci en tN o. 09

- 3561 11 to state a claim un d er Tw om b ly a nd Iq b al

. Id. The r emai ni nga l l eg at i o ns

— pr i m ar i l y ex pl aini ng ea chde fen dant’s r ol e in the i nvest i gat i on

— wer e j us t as c o ns i st en t w i th a l aw ful i nvest i gat i on a s a n illegalco nspir acy to re ta liat e a ga in st B ro ok s. Id. at 581 ( “The behavi or B rook s has a l l ege d that the defendants eng ag ed in i s j ust a s con sisten t w ith law ful cond uc t as it is w ith w rongd oing.”). Ac c o r d i n g l y, w e a ffi r me d th e d i s mi s s a l o fth e c o mp lain t. Id. at 582. I n Swans on , o n the o the r h a nd , we a pp l i e d Tw o mb l y/ Iq bal an d held that the p lai nt iff’ s all egation s w ere su ffi c i e n tt o s u r v i v e a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s o n a tl e a s ts o me of h er cla im s. Sw an so n, an A fric an -A m er ica n l o a n ap p licant who w as turned down f ora l oan , c laim ed that that th e den i alwas b ased on he r r ac e i n v i o l at i o n o fthe Fai r H ousi ng A ct (a m ong othe r causes o fact i on)
. 61 4 F
. 3d at 402- 03. H erc om pla i nt al l ege d that the defendants in te n tio n ally u n d er va lu ed h er h om e a n d th at th ey d id so be c au se of h er rac e. Id. a t4 0 3
. S he all ege d th a ta thi r dpartyapprai serhad val ued the hom e a t $ 240, 00 0, m uch h igh er th an th e d efe n d a n t ’ s v alu at ion of $1 70 ,00 0. Id. W e hel d that b ecause S w anson’ s cl ai m o fh ou si ng di scr i m i na ti o n was unc o m pl i ca te d, S wans o n’ s pl ea d i ng bu rd en un d er Tw om blya nd Iq b al w as sa tis fied

. Id. a t4 04. H er c o m pl aintc o nt aine d f ac tu ala l l eg at i o ns i den ti fy i ng ( 1) wh o disc ri m i nated a gainsther ; ( 2) the type ofdi scri m i nati on that o ccurr ed; and ( 3) wh en the di scr i m i natio n to ok p lac e. Id. at 405. W e hel d that g i ven the st ra i ghtfor w ar d n at u re of th e c laim , Tw om bly/Iq bal re quir ed n ot h i n g m or e. Id. ( ci ti ng S wi e rki e wi cz v. S ore ma N. A. , 534 U
. S. 506, 511-12 (2002 ))
.12 N o. 09

- 3561 This case i s m or e l i ke Brook s th an Sw a nso n. M any o f the a l l eged “fa cts” ar e a ctual l y l ega l co ncl usi ons orel em ents ofthe cau se ofact i on, wh i ch m ay be di sr ega rded on a m ot ion to d ism iss
. Se eIq b al , 12 9 S. Ct. at19 51. Fo r exam ple , M c C au l ey al l ege s that the Ci ty “has an unw ri tte n custo m , prac ti ce an d p ol i cy to aff or d l ess er prot ecti on o r none a t all to vi cti m s o fdom est i c vi ol ence” and that “ [ t] here i s no r ati onal b as i s” f orthi s purpor ted pol i cy. S i m i l ar l y, M cCaule y a l l ege d the f ol l owing: [ The City], th ro ugh i ts age nts, em plo yee s a nd /o r ser vants, act i ng under co l or o f law, atthe l eve l o f offi ci alpol i cy, prac ti ce, and custo m , with del iber ate , callous, and cons cious ind ifferenc e to M c C a uley’s co ns ti tu ti o na l right s, a utho r i ze d, t o l er at ed, a nd i nst itu ti onal i zed the pract i ces and rat i fi ed the i l l ega l conduct h erei n detai l ed, and at al l ti m es m ate ri alto thi s Co mpl a i nt, [ the Ci ty] h a d int e r r e l a t e d de f acto pol i ci es, prac ti ces, and custo m s. T h e s e a r e th e l e g a l e l e me n t s o fth e v a r i o u s c l a i ms M cC au l eyha s as se r te d; the y a r e no t f ac tu ala l l eg at i o ns and as s uch cont rib u te nothi ng to the pla usibi l i ty an alysis un d er Tw om b l y/Iq b al

. Once th e l eg alc o nc l us i o ns a r e di sr eg ar ded, j us t o ne parag ra ph off actualal l ega ti ons re m ai ns: Defe nd ant v i ol ate d M cCaule y’ s co nsti tuti onalr i ghts und er42 U
. S. C. § 1 983 by:
a. f ai l i ngt o pr o vi de ade qua te s ecuri tya nd prom ptl y a rr estM ar ti nez;N o. 09

- 3561 13 b. fai ling to prom ulgate any p oli cy to en su re the pr om pt ar re st ofi nd i vi du al s guil ty of vi ol ating pro tect i ve or ders;
c. m aint aini nga po l icy or cus to m o ff ai l i ng to ti m el y a rr estvi ol ato rs o fpro tect i ve or ders; d. m aint aini nga c us to m a nd pr ac ti ce o ff ai l i ng to a dequa te l y t r ain o ffi ce r s con ce r ni ngthe n ec es sit y of p ro m p tly arr es tin g in d ivid u als gui l ty ofvi ol ating pro tect i ve or ders;
e . m ai nt a i ning a po l i c y o r c us t o m o f f a i l i ngto have safeguar ds i n pla ce t o ensu re thatvi ol at o r s o f pr o t e c t i v e o r de r s we r e t i mel y a r r e s t e d; f

. f ai l i ng to have a custo m , p ra c ti ce a nd pol i cy ineffe c t t o v er ify w h et h er so m eo n e w h o is ar re ste d fo r dom est i c vi ol ence i s o n paro l e; g. f ai l i ng to have a custo m , prac ti ce a nd pol i cy to com m u n i cate with s tat e o ffi ci al s a nd l aw en for c em en t o fficia ls re ga rd in g d om es tic vi ol ence ar re sts ; h. f ai l i ng to have a custo m , prac ti ce a nd p olicy i n effec t i n or der t o com m unica te w i th paro l e a gents o n dom est i c vi ol ence ar re sts ; i
. f ai l i ng to have a custo m , p ra c ti ce a nd pol i cy in e ffect to verify w he th er an arreste e of a do mes t i c v i o l e nc e o ffe ns e i s o n pa r o l e p ri or to i ss ui nga n o r dero fpr o te ct i o n; a nd j
. m ai ntai ni ng a custo m , p racti ce a nd pol i cy of i gnor i ng the seri ousness o fdom est i c vi ol ence ar re sts
.14 N o. 09

- 3561 M cC au ley m aintain s tha t the se all egation s are suffi ci ent t o sta te a M onell e qu a l

- pr o t e c t i o n c l a i m a g a i nst th e C ity . W e d isa gr ee . In ord er to st at e a fac ially p lausible equ al- p rotection clai m un d er M onell, the f actua l al l ega ti ons i n M cCaule y’ s co m pla i nt m ust a l l ow us to draw th e r eas onabl e infe re nce that the Ci ty est abl i sh ed a po l i cyor p r ac ti ce o fi nt en ti o na l l y di sc r i m i na ting ag ain stfem ale vic tim s o f d om es tic vio l en c e in th e p ro visi on o fpol i ce pr ote cti on. That i s, M cCaule y nee ded to alle ge en ou g h “b y w ay of fac tu al c on te n t t o ‘n u d g[e ]’ h is cl ai m o fpur po se fuldi sc r i m i na ti o n ‘ ac r o ss the l i ne fro m concei vable to p lausibl e. ’ ” Iqba l, 129 S. Ct. at19 52 ( quoti ng Tw o m bly, 550 U
. S. at 570)). B ec a u se th e E q u al P ro te c tio n C lau se is “c on c er n ed

. . . wi the qua l t r ea tmentr athe r tha n wi the st abl i sh i ng enti tl em ents to som e m i ni m um of gov er nm en t ser vi ces, [ i t] does notenti tl e a per son t o adequate, o r i nd eed to any, pol i ce pr ote cti on. ” H i l t on v. Ci ty of W he e ling, 209 F.3 d 10 05 , 100 7 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ); s e eal s o DeSh aney v . Winn ebago C nty
. D ep’t o f So c. Servs., 489 U
. S. 18 9, 19 6 ( 1989 ) (T he go ver nm ent’ s f ai l ure to prot ect an i nd i vi du al fr o m pr i va te v i o l en ce i s no t ac ti o nabl e un d er the Due Pr o ce ss Cl au se. )
. “ On the o th erha nd, s el ec ti ve wi th

draw alo fpol i ce pr ote cti on, as wh en the Sou ther n sta tes du ring the R ec on str ucti on e ra r efused to gi ve pol i ce prot ecti on t o thei r bl ack ci ti zens, i s the pro totypi caldeni al ofequalpro tect i on. ” H i l t on , 20 9 F
. 3d at 1007
. The al l ega tio n s in th e p ar ag ra p h qu ot ed ab ov e d o n otp lau sib ly sugge st that the C ity m ai ntai ned a pol i cy orprac ti ce o f sel ecti ve w i thdrawal ofpol i ce pr ote cti on. To the co ntra ry, th e c o m p lai nt all eges th at th e C ity f ail ed to have pa r-N o. 09

- 3561 15 ti cul ar i zed prac ti ces in p l ace f orthe s pe ci al pro tect i on o f do me s t i c - v i o l e n c e v i c t i ms . In e s s e n c e , th e c o mpl a i nt alle ge s t h atth e C ity failed t o p r om u lga te sp ec ific pol i ci es f or thi s parti cul ar cl ass of cri m e vi cti m s, not th at the Ci ty denie d thi s cl ass o fvi cti m s e q ual p r o t e c t i o n . At m os t, th e fa c tu al a lleg at ion s in th e c om p lain t p lau sib ly sugge st the uneven all oca ti on ofl i m i ted pol i ce- prot ecti on ser vi ces; theydo notpl ausib ly sugge st that the Ci ty m aintain e d a n int en tional policy or p ractice of om i t t i ng p o l i c e p r o t e c t i o n fr o m fe ma l e d o me s t i c - v i o l e n c e v i c t i ms as a cl ass . J us t as i n Bro o ks , M cC au ley’s factu al al legations are enti re l y c onsi ste nt with l aw ful conduct

— he r e a l awful al l o ca ti o n o fl i m i te d pol i ce re so ur ce s. 5 78 F
. 3d at5 81
. And th e c om p lex ity of M c C au ley ’s e q u al-p ro te c tio n cla im d i s t i n g u i s h e s th i s c a s e fr o m Swans on . The housing- discr im inati o n c l ai m a t i ss ue i n Swans on was quit e s tr ai ghtfor w ar d . Pu tt in g t h e d efe n d an ts on n ot ice o fw h at it entai l ed w as si m ple , so S w anson did notneed t o ple ad m uch by way o f factual co ntent i n herco m pla i nt. There , i n the abse nce o fan obvi ous l eg al a l ternati ve expla nati on, pl eadi ng the “who, wh at, and w he n” o fthe disc rim in at ion c l aim w as en ou gh

. Se eSwans on , 61 4 F
. 3d at 405. H ere, M cC au ley’s eq ua l- p rotection c lai m i s m ore com pli cate d a nd co unterintui ti ve. Yet he has al l ege d onl y that the Ci ty fail ed to have part i cul ar i zed sa feguar ds i n pla ce forthe speci alpro tec tio n o fdom est i cvio lence vi cti m s. Fo r the r eas ons w e hav e e xplained, this does not sta te a M onell equal

- p rotec ti on cl ai m ag ai nst the Ci t y . T hi s c l a i m was p r o pe r l y di s mi s s e d.16 N o. 09

- 3561

Pr op os a l s f ors ome f or m o f“ Rul e 1 2 ( b) ( 6 ) di s c ov e r y” have 2 p ro life ra t e d i n ac a d em ic cir cl es in th e w a k e o f Tw o m b ly an d Iqbal

. See, e . g. , A rt h u r R . M il l e r, Fr o m Co nley t o T w om b ly to (co n tin u ed ...) B. Pr edismissa l D i scov ery Agai nst W al ker M cCaule y doe s no t cha l l enge the di str i ct cou rt ’ s o rder d ism iss in g t h e o fficia l-ca p ac ity eq u al-p ro te c tio n cla im ag ains t W al k ero n El ev en thAm en dm en t g r o unds

. Inst ea d , he arg u es th at th e c ou rtsh ou ld h av e a l low ed h im to con d uc t li m ited d iscovery regard ing W alk e r’s person al involvem en t in th e even ts lead ing to M ersaid es’s m urd er on t h e c h an ce h e m ight u ne arth a basis f or a c l a i m a g a i n s tWa l k e r i n h i s i n d i v i d ua l c a p a c i t y . We re vi ew the denia l o f M cCaule y’ s di sco ver y r equest f or ab u se of d isc re tio n . G riffin v . F o ley, 54 2 F
. 3d 209, 22 3 (7th C ir. 2008). The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s r efusalto autho ri ze Rule 12(b) ( 6) di sc o ve r y was b as ed l argely on th e co ur t’ s vi ew tha t an y perso nal

- capaci ty cl ai m ag ai nst W al kerwould su ffer fro m the sam e d efi ci enci es as the M onell cl ai m ag ai nst th e C ity; nam ely, that M ersaid es w a s n ot a m em ber of a “su sp ect” or “p rotecte d ” class for e q u a l-p rotection pu rp os es . For t h e re as on s w e h av e e x p l a i n ed , th is a n aly sis i s fl aw ed. W e no nethel ess affi rm o n other gr ounds. T o de term ine w he th er pre-R ule 12(b)(6) d is c o very shoul d have be en av ai l abl e in t h i s ca se, we need not deci de the b ro ad erand m or e pr ovo cati ve questi on whethe r i t sh o ul d b e av ai l ab l e i n g en er al, in li ghto fthe Tw om bly/Iq bal ple adingr egi m e. Thi s i s no t a p ro p er cas e 2N o. 09

- 3561 17

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 Iqbal : A D ou ble P l ay on t he Fed eral R u les o f C i vilP rocedu re, 60 D UKE L. J
. 1, 105- 10 ( 2010) ; Scot t Dod son, N ew P l eading, New Di s co ve ry , 1 0 9 M I CH . L. R EV . 53 ( 20 10 ); E d w ard A
. H artn ett, Tam i ng T w om b ly, E ven A f te r I qba l , 15 8 U. P A . L. R EV . 4 7 3 (20 1 0 ). T he theo ry un d erly ing this eff or t is tha t the p lau sibility stan d a r d f or surv iv ing a m otio n to d ism iss requ ires new too ls t o m ee tthe hi ghe r bar, e s pec i al l y wher e the i nf or m at i on ne cessary to su rv iv e a m otio n to d ism iss i s w ho lly o r lar g e ly in th e d efe n d a n t’s h a n d s. S eeM ill er , sup ra , at10 5 (“Si nc e the co m b in ed ef f e c t o f Tw o m b ly, Iqbal, an d the s um m ar y j udgm en t t ri l ogy i s to r equ i re a pl ai nt i fft o h ave gr ea t erkno wle dge c onc er ni ng h is c l ai m e i the r befor e i ns t i t ut i ng a n a c t i on or i m m edi at el y the re aft er, i ne qua l i t y ofi nf or m at i on ac c es s duri ng thos e c ri t i c al tim e f ra m es pos es a s i gni fi c ant

— i fno t the m os ts ign i fi c ant

— p ro b le m for m a n y p eo p le see k in g affir m a tiv e r el ie f.”). for R ule 12(b)(6) d iscovery in any even t. M cC au ley’s c o un s e l c o nc e de d a to r a l a r g ume nttha th e “ ha s not hi ng” to sugge st th at W al kerwas pers onal l y invol ved i n any of the e vents lea ding to M er sai des’ s d eath. Ind eed, bas ed on the c o mpl a i nt, the r e i s n o r e a s o n a ta l l t o thi nkthe I DOC d irector had any p erson al r ole in M artinez’s p arole sup ervision, m uc h less th e sp ecifi c even ts p reced ing M ersaid es’s death. A ccor dingl y, the denia l o fM cCaule y’s re quest f o r Rul e 12 ( b) ( 6) di sc o ve r y was no t anabus e o fdi sc r et i o n. A FFI RMED .18 N o. 09

- 3561 H A MI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg e, d i sse nti ng i n part
. Iag re e wi th my c o l l e a g ue s tha t pl a i nt i ff ha s f a i l e d t o s tat e a cl ai m a g ains t d efendantW al k er . Ir es pec tful l y di ss en t fro m th e rej ec tio n of p lain tiff’ s e q u al p ro te c tio ncla im ag ains t th e City o fChi ca g o . Ia m s k ept i ca l abo ut pl aintif f’ s ab i l i tyt o pr o ve the c l ai m , b uthi s co m pl aint shoul d be s uffi ci ent t o survi ve a m ot ion to di sm i ss f or f ai l ur e to s ta te a c l ai m , e ve n un der th e new an d su bj ec ti ve pl ea di ngs ta nda r ds anno unce d i n Ash crof tv. Iq b al , 1 2 9 S

. C t
. 1 9 3 7( 2 0 0 9 )
. Ie x p l a i n f i r s tmys k e p t i c i s m, then s om e o fthe probl em s rais ed by Iq b al , an d fina lly w hy the co m pla i nt sho uld s urvi ve the m oti on t o dism i ss. M r. McC a ul e y ’ s s ui ts e e k s t o e nfo r c e the F o ur t e e nt h Am en d m en t’ s equa l pr o te ct i o n r equi r ement s o n the de c isio ns o fa m aj orci ty pol i ce for ce about how to al l oca te i ts re sour ces. Pl ai nti ff’ s o nl y v i abl e e qual prote ct i o n the o ry is tha t th e Chi ca g o po l i ce de par tment m ade a d eliber ate deci si on t o m i ni m i ze the pol i ce pr ote ct i o n a va i l ab l e to v i ct i m s of do m es ti c vi o l en ce , a nd th atthe pol i ce di d s o b ec au se o fa n int en ti o na l a ni m us ag ain stw om e n , w h o m ak e u p th e v as t m ajorit y of a d u lt victi m s o fdom est i c vi ol ence. S ee Bu re au ofJ usti ce S tat i stic s, U .S. D ep t. of Ju st ice , Fam ily ViolenceStatist ics 11 (2005), avai l abl e a t htt p: //bj s. oj p. usdoj

. gov/c onte nt/pu b/pd f/fvs. pd f( l as t visi ted Oct. 17, 20 11) ( fi nd i ng tha t wom en we r e 8 4 % o fs p o u s e ab u s e v i c t i m s a n d 8 6 % o fv i c t i ms of abus e at the han d s of a boyfriend or girl fri en d ). A s Isa i d, Iam sk epti calabo ut the pla i nti ff’ s ab ili ty to prove such a cl ai m . W e req uir e pr oo fo fi ntenti onal an im us and do n ot hold m un ici p a lit ies l iable for a m ereN o. 09

- 3561 19 f ai l ure to ar re st, no m att erhow tra gic the c onse quences appear in hi nd si ght. E.g
. , Herna nd ez v . City of G o shen , 32 4 F. 3d 535, 53 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03), f ol l owing D e Shan ey v . Wi nne b ago County Dep’ tof So ci al Se r vic es , 48 9 U.S

. 18 9 (1 98 9)
. Thi s appr o ac h av o i ds di ffi cul t que st i o ns th at are all but unansw er abl e byco urts i n pract i ce. To b egin wi th, ho w s ho ul d th e po l i ce al l o ca te th ei r r es o ur ce s? And h ow sh ou ld a fed e r a l c ou rtm ea su re eq u alit y in th e a ll oca ti on o ftho se re sour ces? S houl d w e foc u s o n patr ol office rs o n the beatpersquar e m i l e? Pe r capi ta? Based on ne i g hb o rhood c r i m e r at es ? H o w sho ul d we g au g e th e ser i ousness o fdi ffer ent c rim es? Sur el y a rm ed robber i es des er ve mor e at te nt i o n tha n a ct s of vanda l i sm, a nd atta cks on vuln erable p er son s p robab ly d eserve m ore att enti on than barfi ghts. A few m om ents ofr efl ecti on co uld g enerate a l i st of m any m or e v ar i abl es and fa cto rs thata sensibl e ci ti zen w oul d w ant the pol i ce t o consi der in deci ding how to al l o ca te the i r re so ur ce s f o r c r i m e pr ev en ti o n. And no m att erhow a pol i ce depar tm ent deci des to al l ocat e i ts re sour ces, i t wil l be possibl e t o i dent ify c ate gor i es of cri m e v i cti m s who re cei ve bel ow-ave ra ge att enti on fro m the pol i ce. There is n o w ay to ensure co m ple te equal i ty, an d t he i nfinite variations in the w ays to m easu re equal i ty re quir e a ny co urt consi deri ng the questi on t o ac t wi thg r ea t ca ut i o n. A nd ye t the co urtho use doo r m ust r em ain o pen to c l a i m s th a t th e p o l i c e a r e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y d e n y i n gs o me p eop le t h e li teral equ al protec tion of th e law

. Th e history ofthe Reconstru c tio n afterthe Civi l W arr em i nd s us that20 N o. 09

- 3561 st at e a n d loc al g ov er n m en ts d e l i b er at ely an d sy st em at ic all y deni ed equalpro tect i on o fthe l aw s t o f or m er sl av es a nd the irde sc en dan ts
. M o r e r ec en tly, the J i m Cro w laws, inte rnm ent o fJ apanese A m er i cans, se gr eg at i o n, v o tingr es tr i ct i o ns , g en derdi sc r i m i na ti o n, a nd ha r as smento fM us l i m Am er i ca ns i n the wak e ofthe Se ptem ber11 , 20 01 ter ro ri st att ac ks a l l r em i nd us that concerns abo ut equalpro tect i on a re notj ust m att er s of byg one hi sto ry . A del iber ate deci si on t o w i thdraw or substa nti al l y r educe pol i ce pr ote cti on t o gr oups based on r ace, nati onalo ri gi n, ge nd er, r eligion, o r pol i ti cal affi l i ati on s houl d quali fy forfedera l co u rtat tenti on and rem edi es. W e a nd o the r fe de r a l c o ur t s h a v e o ft e n r e c o g ni zed th e le ga l via b ility of su c h cla im s, ev en if th e y a r e d ifficu lt to p ro ve . See , e . g. , Schroede r v. Ham il ton School D is t. , 28 2 F. 3d 946, 95 7 ( 7th C i r. 20 02) ( “the cor e v i ol ati on o f th e equal pr o te ct i o n c l au se i s i nde ed th e se l ec ti ve wi th

draw alo fpol i ce pr ote cti on fro m a disf avo re d gro up ”) (P os n er , J. , con c u rrin g); H i l t on v. Ci ty of Whe e l i ng, 20 9 F. 3d 1005 , 10 07 ( 7th Ci r. 2000) , ci ti ng Sla ug hter-H o use C a ses, 83 U .S. (16 W all.) 36 , 70 (1 87 2); Ell i ot

- Park v. M angl ona , 5 9 2 F
. 3 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 7

- 0 8 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( r efus i ng to d ism iss p l a i n tiff’s cla im th at offic er s’ fa ilu re to inv es tigat e a nd a r r e s ta dr un kdr i v e r b e c a us e o fa l l e g e d r a c i al favoriti sm viol a ted equ al protec tion); Pr i ce - Corn e l i s on v. Br ooks , 52 4 F
. 3d 11 03 , 1 11 3- 14 ( 10 thCi r . 2 00 8) ( affi r m i ng d en ial of q u alifie d im m u n ity w h er e n o ra tio n al b as is w as ass er ted f oral l ege d pol i cy ofpro vi ding l ess pro tect i on t o l esbi an vi cti m s o fdom est i c v iole nce than toN o. 09

- 3561 21 heter ose xual vi cti m s), c i ti ng Wat s on v. Ci ty of Kans as Ci ty, K ans as , 85 7 F
. 2d 690 ( 10th Cir

. 19 88) ; se e a l so Oki n v . Village of Co rnwa ll -O n -H udson P oliceD ep’t, 57 7 F
. 3d 415, 43 8- 39 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 9) ( affi r m i ngs um m ar y j udg m en t because pl ai nti ffhad not d em onst ra ted the r equi si te di s p a r a t e t r e a t me n to fh e r d o me s t i c v i o l e n c e c o mp lain t); B ure ll a v. C ity of P h il adelphia , 50 1 F
. 3d 134, 14 8- 49 (3d Cir. 2007). A s a cl ai m thatm ay see m i m probabl e but not i m possibl e, di ffi cul t t o pr ov e but noti m pla usibl e, thi s ca se po se s a te stf o r fede r alc i vi lpl ea di ngs ta nda r ds i n the w a ke of Ash crof

tv. Iq b al

. In Iq b al , p l a i nt i ff s a l l e g e d that th ey ha d b ee n mi st r ea te d b y fede r all aw e nf o r ce m en t offi ci al s be cause ofthei r re l i gi on and thei r nati onal or igin in the wake o fthe Se ptem ber11 , 20 01 ter ro ri st at ta ck s o n the Uni te d Sta te s. The a ppea l c o nc erne d the pl aint i ff s’ c l ai m s ag ains t th e Att o r ne y Ge ne ral o fthe U ni ted S tat es and the Di re c to r of the Fe deralBureau o f I nv es ti g at i o n. The S upr eme Co ur t r ec o g ni ze d tha t th e alle ge d ac tio n s o f th e fe d e r al la w en for c em en t o fficia ls cou ld h ave b een perfect ly legal so long as the y w ere base d on ev en- hand ed appli cati on o ft h e law, but that m i str eat m ent b as ed del iber ate l y o n re l i gi on o r nati onal or i gi n coul d vi ol ate the Consti tuti on. 12 9 S

. Ct. at19 52. The Co ur t he l d i n Iq bal that the pl ai nti ff s had f ai l ed to alleg e a p lau sib le c laim of re ligiou s o r n a tio n al or igin d iscri m in ation aga inst A ttorn ey G en eral A sh croft and FBI Dir ecto r M uel l er . A l though the pl ai nti ff s had al l eg ed di sc rimi na to r y i nt en t, the Co ur t f o und tha t th e com p lai nt did not “co nt ain an y factu al al lega t io n suf-22 N o. 09

- 3561 fi cient to plau sibly su ggest p etitio n e rs’ discrim inatory st ate ofm i nd

. ” Id. T h e C o u r twr o t e th a td e t e r mi n i ng w h et h er a c laim is p l a u sib le w ou ld “b e a co n te x t-s p ec ific tas k that r equi re s the r evi ew i ng co urt to d ra w on i ts j u d icial experi ence and com m on s ense. ” Id. a t1 9 5 0
. T he m etho d o fa na l y si s empl o y ed bythe Co urt i n Iq b al i nvo l ve d fi r st“ i den ti fyi ngthe a l l eg at i o ns i n the c o m pl aint that ar e no t e nti tl ed to the ass um pti on o ftr uth” bec ause they ar e m er el y a “f or m ula i c r eci tat i on o fthe el em ents” ofthe cl ai m and thus “ concl usor y. ” Id. a t 1 9 5 1
. The C o u r tth e n l o o k e d o n l y t o t he p o r t i o n s o fth e c o mpla i nt i t deem ed to be “f actualal l ega ti ons” to m ake a su bj ec ti ve pl au sibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n. A s a subo rdi nate federa l co urt, i t is ou r re sponsibi l i ty to do o urb es t to a ppl y the l aw a s st at ed i n Iq b al

. My col l eagues do so here , and the Iq bal st an d ar d is cle ar ly dec isiv e fo r the panelm aj or i ty. The pro bl em her e i s that i t al so our re sponsibi l i ty to do our best to apply other Suprem e Cour t deci si ons invol vi ng pl eadi ng st andards, i ncl ud i ng Leath er m an v. Tarrant C ounty N arcoti cs Inte ll ige n c e an d Coo r di n at i on U nit, 507U .S. 16 3 (1 99 3); Eri cks on v. Par dus , 5 51 U. S

. 8 9 ( 20 07 ) ; a nd S w i e rk i e w i cz v . S o r e ma N. A. , 53 4 U.S

. 50 6 ( 200 2), as w el l as the Feder alRule s o fCi vi l Pr o ce dur e as adopt ed bythe Co ur t an d approve d by Congr ess , and the f or m pl eadi ngs that ar e par t o fthe F ede r alRul es o fCi vi l Pr oced ur e an d th at w er e a lso ap p ro ve d by th e C ou rtan d C on g r e s s. Iq b al i s in seri ous t ensi on with thes e o therdeci si ons, r ule s, and fo rm s, and the Cour t’s o pini on f ai l s t o gr apple w i th or r e s o l v e tha tt e ns i o n. Ido n o tb e l i e v e i ti s a n exagg er a-N o. 09

- 3561 23 tio n to sa y t h at th es e d ec isio n s, ru les , an d form s s im p ly co nfl i ctwi th Iq b al

. A s a r esul t of th is unr eso l ved te nsi on, since Iq b al was deci ded , the l ower federa l co urt deci si on s s eek i ng to appl y the ne w “pl au sibi l i ty ” st an dar d a r e wi l dl y i nc o nsi st en t wi the ac h o th er, a nd wi ththe co nfl i ct i ngde ci si o ns of t h e Su p re m e C ou rt
. Iq b al h as als o ge n er at e d a sm all bli zzard of articles by law p rofessors an d p r actitioners cri ti quing the dec isi on a nd anal yzing i ts i m pli cati ons. O n e o f th e m os t u se fu l an d p er su as ive of th os e is P ro fes so r A rt h u r M iller’s art icle , From Co nley to Tw om bly to Iqba l: A D o uble P la y o n th e Federa l R ules o f C ivi l P roc edu re, 60 D u ke L
. J. 1 (20 10 ). See als o, e . g. , Robe rtBone, Plausibi li ty Ple adi ng Rev i s i t e d an d Re vi s e d: A Com m e nt o n A s hc r of tv. Iq b al , 85 N otr e Dam e L. Rev. 8 4 9 ( 2 0 1 0 ) ; P a t r i c i a W. H atam yar, TheTao of Ple adi ng: D o Twom bly a nd Iq b al M at t e rEm pi r i ca l l y? , 5 9 Am
. U. L. Re v. 5 53 ( 20 10 ) ( fi ndi ng sta ti sti cal l y s i gni fi cant d iffer ences i n the tr eat m ent o f m ot ion s t o d ism iss , pa rt icu lar l y w ith reg ar d to civ il rig h ts ca se s); H on . C olle en M c M ah on , The Law of U ni ntend ed C o nsequ ence s: Sh o ck w a ves in the Lo w er C o urts a fter B el l Atlanti c v. Tw om bly, 41 S uffol k U. L. Rev. 851 (2008 ). W i thout re vi si ti ng the enti re ty of thi s l en gt h y cri ti que, In ote bel ow som e o fthe keypro bl em s that Iq b al pre sents f orfedera l d istr i ct a nd ci rcui t j ud ges , and the parti es a n d a t t o r n e y s w h o l i t i g a t e c a s e s b e f o r e th e m: Fir st, Iq b al ’s re aso ni ng and hol ding confl i ct with Rule 9(b) , wh i ch r equi re s that a party a l l eging fra ud o r m i st ak e “s ta te wi th p ar ti cul ar i tythe c i r cumst an ce s co n-24 N o. 09

- 3561

s t i t ut i ngfr a ud o r mi s t a k e . ” As f o r o the r st ate s o fmi nd , how eve r, the rul e pr ovi des: “M al i ce, i ntent, know led ge, and otherco n d itio n s ofa perso n’s m i nd m ay be a l l ege d g en er al l y . ” I n thi s co nt ex t, “g en er al l y ” m ea ns a s a co nc l usio n, w ith ou t s p ec i fy in g u n d er lyin g fa c ts th at w ou ld supp or t the i nfe re nce. Fo r exam ple , thi s pro vi si on has long been un d erstood not to req ui r e t ha t d iscrim inatory i nt e ntb e a l l e g e d wi th pa r t i c ul a r i t y i n e mpl o y men tdi scri m i nati on ca ses . S ee Sw ie rkie w icz , 534 U .S. at 51 2 (u n an imo u s l y r ej e c t i n gr e qu i r e me n tth a te mp l o y me n td i s c r i mi nati on co m pla int pl ead f acts sa ti sfyi ng el em ents of pr i ma f a c i e c a s e , b e c a us e “ i mpo s i ngthe C ourto fAppea l s’ he i g ht en ed p le adings ta nda r d i n e m pl o y m en t d isc rim in at i o n c as es co n flict s w ith Fe d er al R u le of C ivil Proc ed ure 8(a)( 2)”). N ot e that B el l Atlanti c Corp. v. Tw om blye n d o r s e d t he con tinu ed vital ity of Sw ie rk ie w icz

. 55 0 U.S

. 54 4, 56 9- 70 (20 07 ); see als o M iller, 60 D u ke L . J. at31
. Iq b al al so see m ed to en d orse the k ey Sw ie rkie w icz hol ding re gar ding hei ghtene d plea ding sta nd ar ds, n oting tha t R ule 9 “ex c u ses a p arty from plead ing d iscrim inatory i ntent und eran e l evat ed ple adingst an dard. ” 1 29 S. Ct. at 1954 ( d isc laim i ng a “r i gi d rul e r equi ring the detai l ed pl ea di ngo fa c o ndi ti o n o fmin d ” as “u nde si r ab l e” )
. But i n the a na l y si s th atwas a ctua l l y de ci si ve i n the case , however, the Iq b al Courthel d that under Rule 8 th e co m pl aintl ac k ed “a ny f ac tu alall eg at i o n s uffi ci en t to pla usibl y s ugges t pet i ti oner s’ di scr i m i natory s tat e o f m i nd

. ” Id. at 1952
. Iq b al doe s not elaborat e on th e nat ure an d n u m b er o fs p ec ific fa c ts th at m u st be inc lu d ed in th e R u le 8 “s h or t a n d p lain st at em en t o f th e c laim ” inN o. 09

- 3561 25

or der t o achi eve pl ausibility. The Court’ s a pp l i cati on o fRul e 8 to i m po se a mor e d em an di ngpl ea di ng sta nd ar d fo r discri m i natory intent i s no t co nsi ste nt with i ts sta ted adhere nce t o Rule 9 a nd i ts express autho ri zati o n o fgener alpl ea di ngo fdi sc r i m i na to r y i nt en t an d m o sto th ers ta te s o fm ind

. The Cou r t’ s st at ementabo ut Rule 9( b) that“ ‘ ge n er ally’ i s a r el ati ve ter m ” does not sol ve the pr obl em o r gi ve pract i calgui dance to di str i ct cour ts. S ee i d. at19 54. Se c on d , Iq b al confli cts w ith oth er r e cen t Sup rem e C ou rt d ec isio n s. Iq b al di d n ot ove rr ule o r questi on a num ber ofth e Court’ s pri orcas es on not i ce pl eadi ng. S ee Le at he r m an , 50 7 U.S

. at 168 ( unanim ousl y r ej ecting hei ghten ed p l ea d in g s ta n d ar d for c u st om -or -p olic y c laim u n d er 42 U .S.C . § 19 83 ); Eri cks on , 5 5 1 U. S

. a t9 0 ( a f ter Tw om bly, sum m ar i l y r eve rs ing di sm i ssa l o fpro se pri sone r’ s co m pla i nt f ordel iber ate i nd i ffer ence to m edi ca l ne eds wher e th e co ur t o fa pp eals d ee m ed th e com pla i nt to o “c oncl usor y” w i th r espectto wh ether defen dan t’ s ac ti o ns c au se d “ su bs ta nt i alharm , ” an d fi nd i ng tha t: “The ho l ding depa rts in so st ar k a m anner fro m the ple adingst andard m andated by the F edera l Rul es o fCi vi l Pr o ce dur e th atwe g r an t r ev i ew. ”)
. M an y case s, ci tin g Le at he r m an , r ej ec t he i g ht en ed pl ea di ngs ta nda r ds f o r the e l e men t s o fa M onell custo m o r pol i cy c laim su c h as th e on e alleg ed h e r e . S e e, e . g. , Jac ks on v. M arion Cou nty, 66 F. 3d 151, 153 (7th Cir. 1995) (“ Le at he r m an m ake s cl earthatthe federa l co urts ar e no t t o i nter pol ate a requ irem en t of fac t p le a d ing into the fed eral r ules.”). A s n ot ed , Iq b al a l so c r ea te d t en si o n wi th Sw ie rkie w icz b y e nd o rs i ng i t s h o l di ngwh i l e s i mul t a ne o us l y a p-26 N o. 09

- 3561 p ea rin g to re q u ire th e sam e sor t offa c t-s p ec ific ple adingo fdi scr i m i natory intent that the Sw ie rkiew icz Co ur tr ej e c t e d. T h ird , Iq b al co nfl i cts w ith the f or m co m pla i nts approve d b y the S up re m e Cour t a nd Congr ess as parto f the F edera l Rule s o fC ivil Proc edure. Rule 84 pro vi des that the for m s in the append i x “suffice u nd erthes e rul es and i l l ustr ate the si m pli ci ty and bre vitythat thes e ru l es conte m pla te. ” Iq b al did not p urp ort to overru le or am en d R u le 8 4 o r th e fo rm s, b u t itis d ifficu lt to r eco nci l e the new “pla usibi l i ty” st andard w i th tho se for m s. M an y of t h e a p p ro ve d form s re q u ire virt u ally no e xpl an at i o n o fthe unde r l y i ngf ac ts as l o nga s th e defe nd ant i s info rm ed ofthe ev en t or tr ansact i on that gave r i se to the c l ai m , acc or d ing t o the b ro ad noti ce pu rpos e o fthe rul es. Fo r e x a m p le, Form 15 i s a com p lai nt f or the con versi on of proper ty. I t i s suffi ci ent f or the pla i nti ff to allege th ato n a s ta te d da te a t a st at ed pl ace, “the de fen dan t conve rt ed to the defe nd ant’ s o w n u se proper ty own ed b y the p l a i nt i ff, ” a nd t o i de nt i fy the c o nv e r t e d p r o perty an d state its ap p roxim ate valu e. N oth in g m ore i s nee ded — no factu al deta il s abou t the de fend an t’s action s, an d no all ega t io n con cern ing the de fend an t’s st at e o f m i nd. Under th e pl au sibi l i ty st an dar d of Iqbal , thi s for m c om pla i nt se em s r em ar kabl y “ concl usor y, ” y et i t i s s uffi ci ent a ccor ding to Rule 84. Sim il arly, Form 11 i s a com p lai nt f or negligence

. A p art fr o m j ur i sdi ct i o n a nd da m ag es , i t i s su ffi ci en t f o r the com pla i nt to sa y o nl y th at on a sta ted date at a s tat edN o. 09

- 3561 27 p lac e, d efe n d an t “ n eg lige n tly d ro ve a m ot or ve h icle aga i nst the pla i nti ff

. ” A gain, nothi ng m or e i s n ee d ed about j ust what the defe nd ant di d orw h y thos e a cti ons am ounted to negl i gence . Thi s a l so see m s qui te “con clusory,” bu t it is suffi cient un d er Ru le 8 4 . B ut cf. B ranham v. D olgenco rp , Inc
. , 200 9 W L 26 04 44 7, *2 ( W
. D. Va. A ug. 24, 200 9) (app l yi ng Iq b al st andard to d ism iss slip -an d -fall n eg lige n c e c om p lain t b ec au se it f ai l ed to al l ege “f acts thatsho w how the l i quid cam e t o b e o n th e floo r, w h et h e r t h e D efe n d an t k n ew or s h ou ld ha ve kno wn o fthe pre se nc e o fthe l i qui d, o r ho w the Plaintiff’s accid en t occu rred ”). Even Fo rm 21 , wh i ch i ncl ud es a cl ai m to se t a sid e a fra ud ule nt co nveya nce, i s r em ar ka b l y t er se. That por ti on o fthe f o r m c o m pl aints ay s o nl y tha t o n a s ta te d da te , the defen dan t co nv ey ed al l o r a s pec i fi ed po r ti o n o fde fen dan t’ s r ea l a nd pe r so na l pr o per tyt o a no th erde fen dan t

“ f o r the p ur po s e o fde fr a ud i ngthe p l a i nt i ffa nd h i nd

er i ngo r de l ayi ng th e co l l ec ti o n o fthe de bt

. ” Again, nothi ng m or e i s nee ded abo ut the ci rcum stances o f the c onvey ance, and the “ge nera l ” or“co ncl usor y” al l ega ti o n o f a pu r po s e t o de fr a ud i s s uffi c i e nt
. On e c o ul d g o on with paral l elanal ysi s o fthe othe r f or m co m pla i nts. U nl ess o ne can pla usibl y e xplain away the tensi on bet wee n Iq b al and Rule 9(b) and the Rule 84- endors ed f o r m c o m pl aint s, the n Iq b al c o nfl i ct s wi ththe Rul es Enab l i ngAc t, 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 0 71 et seq . , and the presc ribed p ro cess f oram ending the F edera l Rule s o fCi vi l Pro cedu re . S ee Sw ie rkiewicz , 53 4 U.S

. at51 5, ci ti ng Le at he r m an , 50 7 U .S. at 1 68 ; H i l l v. M cDonough , 54 7 U.S

. 57 3, 58 2 ( 2006 )28 N o. 09

- 3561 ( “S pec i fi c pl ea di ngr equirem en ts a r e m an dat ed bythe Feder al Rules of Civi l Pro cedure, and no t, as a gen er al rul e, thr ough c ase -by- case deter m i nati ons ofthe federa l cou rts.”)
. Fo u rt h, Iq b al ’ s re l i ance on the f act/ concl usi on d i choto m y is hi g hl y s ubj ec ti ve , a nd r etur ns c o ur ts t o the l o ng disa pp ro ved m etho ds ofanal ysi s und er t h e r egi m e o f code pl eadi ng. S ee M i l l er, 60 Duke L. J. at 23- 24. I s a n al l eg at i o n tha t “de fen dan t was ne g l i g en t” o r that“ defen dant acte d w i th r aci al l y di scr i m i natory intent” an al l ega ti o n o ff ac t o r a c onc l us i o n? Ca l l i ngthe se a ss er ti o ns ele m e n t s of th e claim i s not logicall y suffici en t to de term i ne wh en and ifthey shoul d be denied a pres um pti on o f truth. Ev eni n Iq b al , the Co u rt p re sum ed tr ue so m e a sse rt ion s t h atco u ld be ch ar ac te riz ed as co n c lu so ry , w h ile d isa p p ro vin g of o th er s. Se e 1 29 S. C t. at 19 61 (S o u te r, J., d iss en tin g). Iq b al ’ s r el i ance o n the f act/ concl usi on di chotom y m ake s the di ffer ence i nd ete rm i nate. A pp l i cati on ofthe dicho tom y i s l eadi ng to j ud ge- specifi c and cas espe ci fi c di ffer en ce s i n o ut co m e th atc o nfus e ev ery o ne invol ved. The l ong l ega l hi sto ryo fco de ple ading, tho ugh p er h ap s d ist an t e n ou gh in t im e t o h a ve be en larg ely f or go tt en bym osto fto days’ l aw yer s a nd j ud ges , pro vi des am ple addit i onalev i dence on thi s point. Fift h, Iq b al ’ s reli ance o n “j udi ci ale xpe r i en ce a nd co m m o n s en se ” i nv i te s th e hi g hl y s ubj ec ti ve a nd i nc o nsi ste nt r esul ts that have been obse rv ed. The Iq b al c o ncept o fpl ausibi l i ty i s “ conte xt- speci fi c. ” 1 29 S. Ct. at19 50. A s a p ra cti calm att er, the concept i nvi tes di str i ct j ud ges to exer ci se thei r in d ivid ual vi ew s o fthe l i kel y m er i ts ofN o. 09

- 3561 29 the c ase atthe outse t, wh en the o nl y info rm ati on avai l abl e i s the co m pla i nt. W or se sti l l, an unc rit i cal r ea di ngo fthe Co ur t’ s “obv i o us a l te r na ti ve e xpl an at i o n” r ea son in gs ee m s to i nv i te j udg es t o wei g h c o m pet i ng ex p lan at ion s fo r alle ge d c on d u c t an d d ism iss ca se s m er ely because theybel i eve o ne expl anati on overanother

. See 129 S. C t. at 19 5 1 (re fer rin g t o “ m or e like ly ex p lan at ion s” ). In appli cati on, thi s s tandard be ar s a st ri ki ng r ese m bl ance t o the m ostst ringent ple adingr equi re m en t in A m er i can ci vi l l aw , f orpl eadi ng sc i enteri n sec u rit ies fra ud cl ai m s, pur su an t to the s pec i fi c di r ec ti o n o fCo ng ress i n the Pr i v a t e S e c ur i t i e s Li t i g a t i o n Re f o r m Act
. S e e 1 5 U. S

. C. § 78u -4(b)( 2) ( requ iring plaintiffto “state w ith p arti cul ar i tyf ac ts g i vingr i se t o a st ro ngi nfer en ce tha t th e de fe nd a nt a c t e d wi th the r e qu i r e d s t a t e o fmi nd ” ) ; a c c o r d, Tel l ab s , Inc . v. M a k o r Issu e s an d Rights , Lt d. , 55 1 U.S

. 30 8, 323- 24 ( 2007 ) ( expla i ni ng tha t a “s tr ong i nfe re nce” m ust be “co gent and com pel l i ng, thus s tr ong i n l i ght ofo ther ex p lanation s” for th e d efend an t’s actions). C ong ress ha s not im p osed suc h a d em an d ing stan d ard f o r pl ea di ngi n any oth erc o nt ex t— i ncl ud i ng ci vi l r i ghts an d em p loym en t d iscrim inatio n c a ses, w hich often tu rn on w h et h er a d efe n d an t’s ex p lan at ion for a d ec isio n is l eg i ti m at e o r mer ely a pr etext co ve r i ngf o runl awful b ias . Ru le 9 (b ) an d th e Su p r e m e C ou rtd ec isio n s in S wi e rki e wicz a nd Le at he r m an per m i t pl ai nti ff s t o ple ad i ntent gener al l y, m eani ng w ith ou t the so rto fspeci fi cs re quir ed und erthe PSLRA

. But i fthe Iq b al pl ea di ng st an dard is appl i ed i n the di st r i ctc o ur t, pl aint i ff s who al r ea dy f ac e th e uphi l l b at tl e of pr o vings ec r eti nt en t30 N o. 09

- 3561

m us t now cont en d w ith th e p o s sibil ity ofpre-d iscovery dism i ssa l wh eneve r the a l l ege d prete xt as ser ted by defendants i n thei r m oti on t o dism i ss sounds pl ausibl e t o the c om m on s ense ofthe parti cul arj ud ge. The pote nti al ha rm of Iq b al in th is con tex t is th at ou tcom es w ill vary base d on h ow d i ffer ent j ud ges vi ew the pla usibi l i ty o f, f o r e xa m pl e, a po l i ce po l i cy m ak er h arbo r i nga nd a c t i n go n i mp r o p e r mo t i v e s t o wa r d w o menw h o c o mpla i n ofdom est i c vi ol ence. As we s t r ug g l e wi th the s e pr o b l e ms, i t i s i mpo r t a nt to re cal l thatthe Iq b al C ou rtd isc laim ed su c h a p ro b ab ilist ic bal anci ng, abs ent a cces s t o evi dence, to deter m i ne wh i ch theo ryof the case seem s m or e li kel y true. See 129 S. Ct. at 1949 ( “The pl ausibi l i ty sta nd ar d is notak i n to a ‘ probab ility requi re m ent’
. . . . ”)
. A l though the Iq b al o pini on u s e d p h ra se s s u c h as “m or e like ly,” an d “a s b et w ee n,” i ts ho ul d n o tb e r e a d t o s a y tha ta p l a i nt i ffs ho ul d l ose on the pl ea di ng s be ca us e a defen dan t ha d a more pl au sibl e al te r na ti ve e xpl an at i o n. Ra th er, i n l i g htof th e alternat ive exp lanation, plaintiffneed ed t o “all ege m ore by w ay of f actu al conten t to ‘nud g[e]’ h is cl aim of p urp os efu l d isc rim in at ion ‘ac ro ss th e lin e fro m co n c eiv ab le to pla usibl e. ’ ” 1 29 S. Ct. at19 52 ( quoti ng Tw om bly, 55 0 U .S. at 5 70 ). A p lau sib le c la i m c a n se em les s p lau sib le orpro babl e than th e obvi ous a l ternati ve and sti l l sur vi ve d ism issal. W he t he r this distinc tion involves a real differenc e w il l d ep en d on th e care j ud g e s take not to rati fy p o t e n t i a l f a l s e p r e t e x t s a s “ o b v i o u s ” wh e n ma k i ng th eir com m on-sen se p lau s ib il ity dete rm inations on bare ple ading s.N o. 09

- 3561 31

So m e c om m en t at or s ha ve not ed a c onc er n, unde rl yi ng 1 Tw o m b ly a nd Iqbal, w ith l im it ing def endan ts ’ s up posed bu rden of com plying w ith disc overy. See M il le r, 60 D uke L. J
. at 53 -59; Bo n e , 8 5 N otr e D am e L
. R
. at 85 9. O the rs an sw er w ith com p eting con cern s ab ou t pr ov id ing p lain tiffs w ith ac cess to courts i n order to disc over the actual bu t often hidd en ex planat i on f or d efen dant s ’ har m ful conduc t
. G i venpr ope r not i c e ofthe s or tofc l ai m be i ng a s s er t ed, the Fe der al Rul es ofC ivi l Pr oc edur e gi ve c our t s an d part i es power ful t ool s t o c onfi ne the sc o p e o f d isc o v er y to re le v a n t is su es . Se e F ed . R . C iv . P . 26 (b ). I resp ectfu l l y s u g g est tha t effectiv e u se of tho se too ls is m uch m ore l ikel y to c ontrol cos ts of l iti g a tion than the s ub j ectiv e a n d u n c e r ta in p le a d in g sta n d a rd o f Iqbal, w hich has b een m u ltiply ing litigatio n o f p lead ing d ispu tes. F o r e xa m pl e, i n thi s ca se , the maj o r i tyr el i es o n Brooks , i n whi chwe f o l l o wed the r ea so ni ngi n Tw om blyan d sa id that the r eci ted b eh av iorwas “j ust a s co nsi ste nt with l aw ful conduct as i t i s with w ro ngdoi ng. ” B roo ks v. R o ss , 5 7 8 F
. 3 d 5 74 , 5 8 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. Bu t thi s do e s no t m ean th atwe uphe l d the di smi ss al b ec au se a t i e g o es t o the d efe n d an t. O n its fac e, Iq b al l ea ve s undi sturbe d the f actual presum pti on i n f avo r of pla i nti ff on a m otion to d ism iss
. Id. Rather, the c laim s were dism i sse d because , abs en t m ore factu al conten t, “B rooks’s all egation s are to o va g u e t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e t o d e fe n d a n t s o fth e c o ntour s o fhi s . . . cl ai m . ” Id. at 5 81-82. Th e prim ary p urpose ofnot i ce p lead i ng under Rul e 8 i s no ti ce. I m pla usibl e pl ead i ngs do harm pri m ar i l y b y f ai l i ng to g r o und the m se l ves s uffi ci en tly i n r ea l i tys uchtha t defen dan ts c ankno w w ha t i s cl ai m ed. S i m i l ar l y, i n Swans on 1 v. Ci t i b ank, N .A
. , 61 4 F
. 3 d 4 0 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) , we32 N o. 09

- 3561

re ver sed di sm i ssa l o fa c om pla i nt thato nl y a l l ege d r acial discrim ination gen erall y, m en tioning j us t the perpetra torand tim e- fra m e. These al l ega ti ons w er e e nough to “g ive th e o p p os in g p ar ty n ot ice of w h at th e c as e is al l abo ut. ” Id. at40 5. The di ffer en ce in r es ul t be twe en Brooks a nd Swans on did notdepend , i n m y v i ew , o n the exi ste nce o fan ob vio u s a lte rn at ive ex p lan a tio n, w h ich w as p re se n t in both case s. S ee i d. at 411 (P osn er, J
. , dissen ting in pa rt). N ori s the M onell cl ai m ra i sed by M cCaule y here substa nti al l y m or e co m pli cate d than the disc ri m i nati on al l eg ed i n Swans on . R a th e r, wh e th e r e a c h o f the s e c o mpl aint s su r vi ve s a Ru le 12 ( b) ( 6) mot i o n de pen ds o n a high ly su bj ec tive plau sibil ity dete rm ination. Th at d eterm i na tio n m ust be m ade with g re at car e, gui ded byan aw ar eness o fthe cor e n ot ice pu rpos e be hi nd Rule 8, as wel l a s k no wl edg e o fthe c o ns eque nc e o fdi smi ss i ng see m i ngl y i m probabl e, ye t po tenti al l y m er i tor i ous, di scri m i nati on cl ai m s a t s uch an ea rl y s tag e. A si m pl e th ou g hte xpe r i m en t unde r sc o r es the da nger ous pot enti alo ve r-b re adth ofthe Iq b al mo de ofpars i ng co m pla i nts — offi rs t a p p l yi ng to o agg re ssi vel y th e fact/co ncl usi on di choto m y t o a co m pla i nt, and then apply i ng the “obvi ous a l ternati ve ex pla nati o n” a na l y si s to the f ac ts tha t r emai n. I m agin e th at as a federa l di str i ct j ud ge, yo u have re ad Tw om blya nd Iq b al and now m u st act on a m oti on t o di smi ss a n e qua l pr o te ct i on co m pl ainti n whi chthe keypara gr aph re ads:N o. 09

- 3561 33 The educati onalo pp or tuni ti es provid ed by defend an ts for infant p lai nt iffs in th e s ep arate all- N egro schoo l s a re i nfe ri orto tho se provi ded f orwh i te sc ho o l c hi l dr ens i m i l ar l y s i tu at ed i n v iol at i o n o fthe equa l pr o te ct i o n cl au se o f th e F o ur te en thAm en dm en t to the Const i tuti on o fthe U n ited Stat es. The r espect s i n w h i c h th e s e o p p o r t u n i t i e s a r e i n fe r i o r i n c l ud e the physi calf aci l i ti es, curr i cul a, te aching, r eso urces , s t ud e ntp e r s o nn e l s e r v i c e s , a c c e s s a nd a l l o the r e ducatio nal f acto rs , ta ngibl e a nd i ntangibl e, o ffer ed to schoo l c h il dren i n Topeka. A part fro m al l o ther fac to rs , th e ra c ial se gr eg at ion h e re inp ra c tic ed in and ofi tse l fco nsti tutes an infe ri or i ty in educati onal opportunity o ffer ed to N egr oes , wh en co m pared to educati onalo pp or tuni ty offer ed to wh i tes
. U nd erthe Iq b al ap p ro ac h, th e firs t s en te n c e m er ely reci tes a l ega l co ncl usi on r ega rdi ng the el em ents ofan equal pro tect i on ca use o fa c tio n and thus sho uld be excl ud ed fro m the Iq b al an aly sis . Th e t h ird se n te n c e is s i mi l a r l y a b a r e c o ncl usi ontha ts ho ul d a l s o b e i g no r e d. Onl y the m iddl e se nt en ce c o nt ains whatmighta m o unt to facts un d er Iq b al . A clo se r an aly sis , ho w ev er , rev ea ls ana r g uably fata l l ac ko fe xpl an at i o n r eg ar di ngho w the l ist ed it em s a re i nfe ri or . The thr ust o fthe sente nce i s a bar e co ncl usi on th at al l f acto rs , ta ngibl e a nd i ntangibl e, co nt r ibut e to the cl ai m ed de pr i va ti o n. Do es thi s co m pl aint provi de the speci fi c f actualco ntent re quir ed by Iq b al ? E ven i f th e all eged “resp ects i n w hich thes e o p p ortuni ti es ar e inf er i or ” m i ght pr oper l y b e ca l l ed al l ega ti o ns o ff ac t, i t woul d b e di ffi cul t f o r a c l ai m o fi nv i di o us34 N o. 09

- 3561

See als o M il le r, 60 D u k e L . J. at 127- 30 ( app lyi ng a si m il ar 2 hyp othet ic al analysi s to the com plainti n the se m inal noti ce (co n tin u ed ...) di sc r i m i na ti o n t o s ee m pl au sibl e i n li g hto fthe o bv i o us al ternati ve expla nati ons f or these defi ci enci es. School b oa rd s p os se ss li m i te d res ou rc es . Pe rh ap s t h ey sim p ly al l oca ted tho se re sour ces acco rd i ng to neutr alf acto rs . Di spa r i tyi n o ut co m e i s j us t as con si st en t wi ththe n at u ra l effe c ts of low er so c io-e c on om ic s ta t u s a s it i s with perni ci ous e ffects o fr aci alse gr ega ti on. Or s o the pos t -Iqbal ar gum ent m i ght g o. The paragra ph qu ote d above i s, o fco urse , ta ken di r ec tly fr o m pl aint i ff s’ a m en ded com p la i nti n Brown v. Bo a r d o f Ed u c a t i on , fi l ed on M ay 29, 19 51. Am en dm en t to P ar a g r ap h E igh t o f th e A m en d ed C om p lain t, Br own v . Bo a r d o

f Educ at i on , 98 F. Sup p . 797 (D. K an . 1951), a v a i l ab l e a th t t p: //www. c l e a r i ngho us e . ne t/ de t a i l

. ph p? i d= 5479 ( l astvi si ted O c t. 17, 20 11)
. W e a l so know that the concl usor y al l ega ti on of t h e t h ird se n te n ce ev en tu all y a ppea r ed as the ho l di ngo fthe una ni m o us Sup rem e C ou rt i n Bro wn v . Bo a r d o f Ed u ca t i on , 34 7 U
. S. 48 3, 49 5 ( 1954 ) ( “Se parat e e du cati onalf aci l i ti es ar e inherent l y unequal

. ”)
. U nd erthe sta nd ar ds of Iq b al , ho wev er, i t woul d b e e as y t o a r g ue tha t th e pl aint i ff s i n Br own failed to st at e a p lau s i b le c laim fo r r el i eftha t co ul d s ur vi ve di smi ss al

. The Co ur t’ s sh i ft to “p lausibili ty” p lead ing, an d the ass ignm e n t o f interpreta ti on o fthatst andard to the subj ecti ve com m on- sense ofi nd i vi du alj ud ges, h as m ar kedl y incre ase d the danger of throw ing out the p roverbial baby w ith th e bath w ater. 2N o. 09

- 3561 35

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 p le a d in g ca se o f Diogu ardiv. Dur ni ng, 139 F. 2d 774 ( 2d C ir
. 1 9 4 4 )). I n the f ace ofal l these p ro b lem s, wh at ar e the l ower fede r alc ou rts t o do ? The se a r e al l s o ur ce s o fc o nt r o l l i ng l aw thatwe are o bl i ged to f ol l ow. A l though c ar eful anal ysi s may he l p the l o we r fe de r a l c o ur t s de t e r mi ne, f or exam ple , thatthe Iq bal ple adings tandard would not re q u i r e a d iffer en t re su lt in p ar tic u lar ca se s, th er e w ill b e c as es , an d M r. M c C au ley ’s e q u al p r o te c tio n cla im appears to b e one ofthem , wh er e the st andard m ake s a deci si ve differ ence. The fi r s tthingwe c a n do i s r e c o g ni z e the u nc e r t ai nty that l i ti gants , th eirl aw yer s, and dis tr i ct c ourt s no w f ace. A s a r esul t o fthatuncer tainty, the cour ts of appeal s s houl d i nsi st that i n al l but the m ostunusual si tu ati ons, a partywh ose pl eadi ng i s di sm i sse d based on the Iq b al pl ausibi l i ty sta nd ar d sh ou ld b e enti tl ed to an oppo r t un i t y t o a men d the p l e a di nga ft e r the c o ur thas m ade i ts deci si on. A llow i ng am endm ent a fterpl eadi ngs d ism issals had l ong been our p r actice eve n be fore Tw o m blya nd Iq b al . See , e . g. , B a r ry A v i a t i o n In c . v . L a n d O’ Lak es M u n ic ip a l Airport Com m ’n , 37 7 F
. 3d 68 2, 68 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) ( quo ting5 A Charl es A ll enW r i g ht& A r th urR. M iller, Fed eral P rac tice an d P roc edu re § 1357( 2d ed

. 1990 ))
. W hethero ne f avo rs br oadero r n arro w err eadi ngs o f Tw om blya nd Iq b al , no o ne de ni es tha t th e ca se s ar e be i ng in te rpre ted as having ca used an upheavali n l ong- set tl ed l aw . A tto rney s a nd part ies tr yi ng to draft co m pla i nts36 N o. 09

- 3561

an d o th erpl ea di ng s wi ll b e l eft wonde r i ngabo utmany im p ortan t qu estions an d con trad ictions th at th e Cou rt ha s no t y etad d ressed. Rul e 1 i ns truct s us t o c o ns true the F edera l Rule s o fCi vi l Proce d u re to se cure the j ust, spe edy, a nd i ne xpe ns i ve de te r m inati o n o fc as es . The S upr eme Co ur t ha s o fte n r emi nde d us tha t pleadi ng rul es shoul d be a pp l i ed to f aci l ita te a pro per deci si on on th e m er its rat h er th an to im p os e a se ri e s o f tra p s in w h ich on e m is-s te p c a n b e d ec isiv e. E .g ., Sw ie rkie w icz , 534 U. S

. a t5 1 4 ( “ Th e l ib e r a l n o t i c e p l e a di ngo fR ul e 8 ( a) i s th e s t a r t i n gp o i n t o fa s i mp l i fi e d p l e a d i n gs y s t e m, w hi ch w as adopted to f ocus l i ti gat i on o n th e m er i ts of a cl ai m . ”) , quo te d i n Chr i s t e ns e n v . County of Boone, 4 83 F
. 3d 45 4, 4 58

- 59 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) , a nd i n Brooks , 57 8 F
. 3d at 58 0. W e sh o ul d ex er ci se ca ut i o n to av o i d puni sh i ng parti es f or i m perfect predi cti ons as to how th e s ubj ecti ve and i nconsi ste nt Iq bal st andard m i ght b e a pp l i ed i n thei r case . So m e s tati sti cs s how thatge nero si ty w i th r ega rd to l ea ve t o a m en d a ppea r s to ha ve i nc r ea sed unde r the new pl ead in g re gi m e, ev en as the tot alper centag e o f dism i ssa l m oti ons gr anted has ri sen. S ee H atam yar, 59 Am
. U. L. Rev. at 60 0 ( an al y zings ta ti st i cs a nd fi ndi ng a “n o ti ce ab l e i nc r ea se i n di smi ss al s w ith l ea ve t o a m en d un d er Tw o m blya nd Iq b al ”). D ist ric t jud ge s s h ou ld continue to gr ant s uch l eave wh en theyar e co ncer ned w i th the e ffe c t s o n pl a i nt i ff s tha tIh a v e di s c us s e d ab o ve. T h ey sh ou ld als o gr an t le av e w h en d o i n g s o c ou ld preve nt r e s ult s i n ot herwis e s i m i l ar cas es f ro m dive rg i n g b ase d m er el y o n differ ences i n pla usibi l i tyN o. 09

- 3561 37 deter m i nati ons m ade byd i ffer ent j ud ges acc or ding to thei r i nd i vi du alj ud i ci alexper i ence and com m on s ense. Courts m ust fre el y g i ve l eave to am end und er Rul e 15 ( a) wher e i nt er es ts o fj us ti ce s o r equi r e. F ed. R. C iv. P. 15(a); Fom an v. D avis , 371 U
. S. 178 , 1 8 1 -8 2 ( 1962 ). Underthi s l ibe r alr ul e, we al low a m en dm en t o n r emand i n m any pr oce du ra l di sm i ssa lca ses , and cer tainl y do so wh e n r e l e v a n td e c i s i o n a l l a w c h a n g e d a ft e r th e c o mpla i nt was fi l ed. S ee, e . g. , Ie nc o v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 28 6 F
. 3d 99 4, 99 9 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ). W h en , as h er e, th e c h an g e d d ec isional l aw i nv olves the sta nd ard f or plead in g i tself, i nt er es ts ofj us ti ce cal l f o r a n o ppo r tu ni tyt o a m en d e ss en ti al l y as a ma t t e r o fc o ur s e u nl e s s i ti s c l e a r tha tthe o pportuni tywoul d b e fut i l e. In Iq b al i t s e l f, th e S u p r e me Court re m anded to the Se cond C ircuitf ora deter m i nati o n whe th ert o fur th err emand — so th a t p l ain tiffs co u ld see k l eave to am end. 12 9 S

. C t. at 19 54; se e a l so Iq b al v. A shcroft, 574 F
. 3d 820, 82 2 ( 2d Cir

. 20 09) ( re m an d in g t o dist ri ct c ourtf ordeter m i nati on r ega rdi ng l eave to amend)

. W e ha ve c o nt i nue d t o pe r m i t su cha m en dm en t after Tw om blya nd Iq b al . See , e . g. , Baus ch v. St ryke rCorp. , 630 F. 3d 546, 56 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. W e s houl d do so here

. Bu t where that ap p ro ach i s no t e nough to r eso l ve th e c a s e , I b e l i e v e we mu s t t a k e c a r e n o t t o e xpa nd Iq b al t o o a g g r es si ve l y b ey o nd i ts hi g hl y unu su alc o ntext — al l eg ati ons a i m ed atthe na ti o n’ s hi g he st
- r an k i ng l aw enfo rce m ent o ffi ci al s ba sed o n thei r re sponse to unp re cedented te rr or i st att acks o n the U ni ted S tat es ho mel a nd — to cu t o ff p ot en t ially via b le c laim s. Iq b al ex em p li fi es th e old ad age abo ut hard c a ses. Th e fai lure38 N o. 09

- 3561 of t h e Su p re m e C ou rtto ad d re ss all of th e la w th at w ou ld confl i ct with br oad appl i cati on o fthe case sho uld wei gh he av i l y a g ains t th atb road appl i ca ti o n, a t l ea stunt i l the Suprem e Cour t pr ovi des cl ear ergui dance abo ut h ow to re conci l e Iq b al w i th i ts pri or case s, the Feder al Ru les o f Civi l Pro cedure, and thei r acco m panyi ng f or m s. R ead ing the pres en t com p lai nt as a w h o le, plaintiff M c C au ley h a s alleg ed th e p ar tic u lar s o f a p lau sib le M onell cl ai m . A s the m aj or i ty p oin ts out, M cCaule y has al l eg ed th e el ement s o fs ucha c l aim u si ngthe r el ev an t legal langu age. W hile som e of th ese stat em en ts are concl usor y i n n ature, theyse rv e t o noti fy defendants an d the cou rt of th e typ e of claim b eing brou gh t. T he re can be no d ou bt th at th e com p lai nt prov ides su ffi ci en t no ti ce o fthe c ircum st an ce s th atg av e r i se t o the cl ai m s. M cCaule y m ade f actualal l ega ti ons that Ch i cago pol i ce f ai l ed to ar rest M ar ti nez despi te knowle dge o f h is h ar as sm en t a n d vio lat i o n s , ¶ 25 , an d th at th is fai lure resu lted from a c u s t om of un tim eli ne ss an d i nd if

fer en c e w ith reg ar d to th e s er iou s n es s o f d om es tic vi ol ence, ¶ 1 25( c) and (j )
. M cCaule y a l l ege s “ del iber ate i nd i ffer ence” gener al l y, se e ¶ 12 6, but el sewhere desc r ibe s numer o us s pec i fi c f ail ures t o a cttha t ar e f ac tu
ally c on sis te n t w ith su c h an in te n t . S e e , e . g. , ¶ 51 . I t i s di ffi cul t to i m ag i ne what m o r e M cCa ul eymight al l eg e o n the c r ucialque st i o n o fi nt en t wi th o utr ec i ting a l i st ofspeci fi c st ate s o fm i nd that Ch i cago pol i ce pol i cym ake rs m i ght ha ve. W e di d not re quir e s uch a r eci tal i n Swans on and w e s houl d not do so here

. By exte nd i ng Iq bal to d ism iss p la intiffM cC au ley’s equa l pr o te ct i o n M onell cl ai m aga i nst the Ci ty ofChica go,N o. 09

- 3561 39 th e m aj ority run s afoul of Le at he r m an , Rul e 9(b) , a nd the f o r m c o m pl aint s appro ve d b y the S upr eme Co ur t an d Congre ss as part of the F edera l Rule s o fCi vi l Pro cedure. Pe r ha ps the S up r e me Co ur tmaj o r i t y i nt e nd e d Iq bal to wo r ks uc h a r e v o l ut i o n i n fe de r a l c i v i l p r a c t i c e , b uti fs o, the Cou rt fa il ed to gr apple w i th the co nfl i cts and did not ex pr es s an y di r ec t r ej ec ti o n o fthe se o th erg o ve r ni ng sour ces ofl aw . U nd erthes e circ u m sta nces, ther ef or e, Iwould r eve rs e the di sm i ssa l o fpl ai nti ff’ s e qual prot ectio n cla im ag ain s t th e C ity of C h ica go an d giv e h im an o pp or tuni ty to p u rsue di sco ver y. Even i fIag re ed that the c urr ent v er si on o fthe com pla i nt fa iled to st ate a cl ai m , Iwould r em and w i th i nstr ucti ons to gi ve pl aint i ffa n o ppo r tu ni tyt o fi l e ana m en ded co m pl aint t o t r y t o c o mpl y wi th the n e w and unce r t a i n s t a nd a r ds of Iq b al

.

10- 20- 11