## 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. 08

- 4286 V ICTO R B R OOKS, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. M AR K R O SS, etal. , 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 . 08 C2417

—Jam es B. Z agel, Judge
.
A RG UE D J UNE 4, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 20, 2009

Befo re F LA UM, W OO D , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C i r c u i t Judge. Th is i s the secon d tim e this cou rt h as be en as ke d to rev iew th e fa ll-ou t fro m R on ald M atr i sci ano’ s t est i m ony befo re the I l l i noi s Pr i son R eview B oard (“PR B ”) in su p p ort of inm ate H arry A l em an’ s peti ti on f or p ar ol e. S ee M a triscia no v. R a nd le, 56 9 F

. 3d 72 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)

. Nor m al ly, em pl o y ee s o fthe I l l i noi s Depart m ent o fCor re cti ons ( “I DO C”) do not serve as ad vo c at es for in m at es . B u t th is i s w h at h ap p en ed in2 N o. 08

- 4286 Decem ber20 02 w hen M atr i sci ano, an IDO C em plo yee , appe ar ed be f o r e th e PRB o n beha lfofAl eman. The PRB v o t e d o v e r wh e l mi n g l y a g a i n s tAl e ma n, wi th P RB m em b e r V i c to r B ro ok s p ro vid in g t h e s ole vo te in h is f av o r . Bec au se o f Ale m an ’ s no to r i ety, ho wev er, the m ed ia took an interest in th e hea ring and in M atrisciano’s ro l e in i t. S ee Peop le v

. Al e m an, 72 9 N

. E.2 d 20 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 00 )

. I n the wak e o ftha t publ i ci ty, th e d i r ec to r o fthe I DOC, D onal d N. S ny der, de m o te d M at r i sc i an o a nd i ni ti a t e d a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n in t o th e p a r o l e in c i d e n t
. Ab o ut th re e year s l ate r, M atr i sci ano and Brook s were i nd i cted f or offi ci al m i sco nd uct and wir e f ra ud in connecti on wi th the Al e manh e a r i ng . Bo th we r e a c qu i t t e d. B rooks bec am e con vince d that he w as th e victim of a co ns pi r ac y t o pr o se cut e hi m . He fi l ed th e pr es en t l aw sui t in state c ourtag ai nst M ar k Ros s, wh o had prepar ed a r epo r t f o r the I l l i no i s S ta te Po l i ce o n the incid en t, an d agains t Josep h Pon setto, E d w a r d Ca rter, J or ge L. M ont es , N or m an M

. S ula, and K enneth D. Tup y, al l o fwh om pl aye d a ro l e in the acti ons aga i nst Bro oks

. I nvoking 42 U

. S. C. § 1 983, Bro oks r ai sed a num ber o fc o ns ti tutiona l a nd s ta te
- l aw c l ai m s ag ains t th e defen dan ts
. De fen d ants r emov ed th e su i t to fede r alc o ur t, a nd then fi l ed an al l

- encom pas sin g m oti on t o dism i ss, o n g r o un ds o fl a c ko fs ubj e c t
- mat t e r j ur i s di c t i o n, s o v e r e i gn i m m unity, abso l ute i m m unity, publi c- offi ci ali m m unity, abso l ute pr ose cutor i ali m m unity, te sti m oni ali m m unity, f ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m , and the sta tute of l im ita ti ons. T h e di s t r i c tc o u r td i s mi s s e d f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m, a n d th e c a s e h a s n o w r e a c h e d th i s c o u r t
. We a ffi r m.N o. 08

- 4286 3 I B ro oks j oi ned the I DO C i n 197 7, and i n 198 0, he b ef ri ended M atr i sci ano, a fel l ow em plo yee . I n 199 5, Gov erno r J i m Edg arappo i nt ed Br o o k s t o the PRB, a nd he was r ea ppo i nt ed by Gov erno r Ge o r g e Ry ani n 2 00 1. One ofthe PRB ’ s funct i ons i s t o m ake paro l e deci si ons f or c er ta in cla ss es of ID O C inm a t e s . A t o n e s u c h h ea rin g in De c e mbe r 20 0 2 , Mat r i s c i a no a pp e a r e d a nd p r e s e nt e d a sta tem ent in f avo r ofi nm ate H ar ryA lem an ’ s par ol e. M at ris c ian o’s vie w s, h ow ev er , d id n otca rry th e d ay ; on ly B ro ok s, ou t o f th e e lev en P R B m em b er s p re se n t, vo te d in f av o r o fAl eman. Ma t r i s c i a n o ’ s t e s t i mo n y b e f o r e t h e P R B c a u s e d s o me contr ove rs y. S i x days l ate r, Geor ge de Tel l a, A sso ci ate Dir ecto r at the I DO C, dem ote d M atr i sci ano. ( Ou r ear l i er c as e a ro se ou t o f th is a c tio n : M at ris c ian o filed a law su it as se r ting th at hi s demot i o n vi o l at ed hi s F i r stAm en dm en t rights, but th is court affi r m e d the gran t of su m m ary j u d gm en t t o t h e d efe n d an ts in t h at ca se . M at r i s ci ano , s upra. ) S om e ti m e aro und Januar y 2003, the I DO C refer re d i ts i nvest i gat i on o fwrongdoi ng to the St ate Pol i ce, with defen dan t M ar kRo ss s er vinga s th e case ag en t. Ov erthe co ur se o fhi s i nv es ti g at i o n, Ro ss i nt er vi ewe d v ar i o us pe o pl e , i nc l ud i ngAl e man, I DOC e mpl o y e e Nancy L. Mi l l e r, a n d P R B me mb e r s J o r g e L

. Mo n t e s a n d N o r ma nM. Sul a. A ssi sta nt A tto rney s Gener al J ose ph Ponsett o and Ed w ar d C

. C ar ter I I Iwere prese nt atthe M i l l er i nter vie w s an d assi ste d Ross a t o ne o fthem

. Ross r el ea sed se ve r ali nv es ti g at i ve r epo r ts abo uthi s ca se , no ting i n a 2 0 0 3 r ep o r tth a t“ Ma t r i s c i a n o a n d a n u n k n o wn4 N o. 08

- 4286

m em bero fthe paro l e bo ard , had acce pted paym ent t o speak f avo rabl y o n behal fo fi nm ate H ar ryA l em an ata p ar ole h ea rin g for A lem an .” A Jan u ar y 2 00 5 re p or t s p ec ifica l l y na m ed Br o oks a s th atPRB m embe r , b ut R o s s ’ s in ve st iga tio n co n c lu d ed w ith a re p or t is su ed in N o ve m be r 2 00 5 th atr efr aine d fr o m i den ti fy i ngthe PRB m em berwh o had accepted br ibes. On Decem ber9, 20 05, Br o o k s an d M at r i sc i an o wer e i ndi ct ed by a g r an d j ur y a nd ch ar g ed wi tho ffi ci almis co nduc t an d wi r e f r au d i n c o nnecti on with the A l em an hear i ng. Th ey w er e bo th ac quit

te d on M ar c h 19 , 200 7, aft er a b en c h tria l. B r o o k s th e n fi l e d th i s l a ws u i t o n Ma r c h 1 8 , 2 0 0 8, i n t he Cir cui t Cour t o fCookCounty, all eg in g v i ol ati ons und er 42 U

. S. C. § 1 983 as w el l a s state l aw . Bro oks nam ed as de fe nd a nt s Ro s s , Po ns e t t o , Ca r t e r, M o nt e s , S ul a , a nd T up y ( PRB c ounsel ) , as wellas I l l i noi s Attor ney Gener alLi sa M adig an and other u n n am ed orunknown st ate o ffi ci al s. C i ti ng the federa l cl ai m s, defendants r em ove d the ca se to federa l co urt. Se e 28 U

. S. C. § 1441

. ( Sul a w as not part of th e in i ti alnot i ce t o re m ove , bec ause i t was uncl earat th e t im e whethe r he ha d pr o per l y b ee n s er ve d. ) De fen dants then fi l ed a m oti on t o dism i ss, w h ich was gr anted i n part , a n d A tto rneyGenera l Li sa M adig an was dis

m i sse d fr om the case . Bro ok s par ri ed w i th an am ended com pla i nt, wh i ch al l eg ed thatthe defe nd ants had depri ved Broo ks ofdue proc ess and h ad c onspi re d to do s o , a nd a l so r ai se d s ta te- l aw the o r i es o fmal i ci o us pros ecuti on, ci vi l co nspir acy, and i ntention ali nfl i cti on ofem ot i o na l di s t r e s s ( “ I I ED” )

. De fe nd a nt s a g a i n fi l e d a m oti on t o dism i ss base d on unti m el i ness, so ver ei gn i m m u n i ty, abs ol ute i m m unity, publi c o ffi ci ali m m unity,N o. 08

- 4286 5 pr o se cut o r i ali m m uni ty, a nd f ai l ur e to s ta te a cla i m . The d i str i ct c ourtgr anted the m oti on, r el yi ng o n the l asto f these gr ounds

. I t e i therdecl i ned to rul e o n orr ej ecte d de fe nd a nt s ’ o the r a r g ume nt s . Pl a i nt i ffh a s n o w a pp e a l e d, an d defen dan ts b o thde fen d the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ul i ng an d o ffer a number o f o th er r ea so ns why i ts j ud gm en t s ho ul d b e a ffi r med

.
II This cour t r evi ew s a di sm i ssa l under Rule 12 (b ) ( 6) f or f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m deno vo . Tam ayo v. Blag ojevi ch , 52 6 F

. 3d 1 0 74 , 1 0 8 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )

. I n a n a l y z i n gth e c a s e , we m ay affirm o n a n y gr ou n d c on ta in ed in t h e re c or d

. B enne tt v. Sp e ar, 5 2 0 U. S

. 1 5 4 , 1 6 6 ( 2 0 0 2 )

. We e l e c t t o e xa m i ne the i ssues o fti m el i ness, so ver ei gn i m m unity, and proper ple adingin thi s o pini on. Because w e fi nd thes e i ssues su ffi ci en t to res o l ve the c as e, we ne ed no t r ea chde fen d an ts ’ arg u m en ts ab ou t a b so lu te im m u n ity , pu b lic offi ci ali m m unity, o r pros ecuto ri ali m m unity.

A The di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t e xp li ci tly a ddr es s th e defen d a n t s ’ s t a t u t e o fl i mi t a t i o n s a r g u me nt, b u tb e c a u s e we fi nd i t pot en tial l y di sposi ti ve ofatl eas t s om e par ts of th e c ase, we consi der i t fi rs t. A pl ai nti ffi n I l l i noi s m ust pur su e a per so na l i nj ur y a ct i o n wi th i n 2 yea r s f r o m the accr ua l o fthe c l a i m. 7 3 5 I LCS5 / 1 3

- 2 0 2
. Br o o k s ’ s § 1 9 83 cl ai m s f ol l ow su it. Se e Wallacev. Ka to , 54 9 U.S

. 38 4, 38 7 ( 20 07 ) ( “S ec ti o n 1 98 3 pr o vi des a fede r alc au se o fa ct i o n, b ut6 N o. 08

- 4286 i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s r e l e v a n t h e r e fe d e r a l l a w l o o k s to t he law of th e St at e in w h ich th e c au se of ac tio n aro se . Th is is so f orthe l ength ofthe statu te ofl i m i tat i ons: I t i s that wh i c h th e S t a t e p r o v i d e s f o r p er so na l

- i nj u r y t o r t s . ” )

. As note d abov e, B rook s was i nd i cted o n Decem ber9, 20 05, and acquit ted o n M ar ch 19, 20 07. H e fi l ed hi s ini ti al com pla i nt o n M ar ch 18, 20 08. I fhis c laim s r un fr om th e ti m e of ind ic tment, the y a r e unt i m ely . I fthe y r un f ro m the ti m e o facqui tta l, the opposi te i s t rue. Defe nd ants cl ai m thatBro oks ’ s federa l§ 1983 co nspir acy an d his state-law civi l con sp iracy and I I E D clai m s are bar re d by the st atute o fl i m i ta tio ns be cause they accr ued at th e tim e of th e ind ictm en t. T he y con ced e, how ever, th at th e s t a t e - l a w ma l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n a n d § 1 9 8 3 due proce ss cl ai m s a re notti m e-bar re d. This i s s o because th e form e r h a s as one of i ts elem en ts th e term ination of a pros ecuti on i n the d efendant’s f avo r. Bro oks ’ s § 19 83 d u e p ro c es s c laim es se n tia lly c on t e s t s th e fa irn es s o f h is pr o se cut i o n. I t i s thus s i m i l art o hi s m al i ci o us pr o se cuti o n c l ai m , a nd “ cl ai m s r es embl i ngmal i ci o us pr o se cuti on do no t a ccr ue u n ti l the pros ecuti on has te rm i nated i n the pla in tiff’s f avo r. ” Sno dde r l y v . R. U
. F. F. D r ug Enf or c e men t Tas k Force, 2 39 F.3d 89 2, 896 (7th Cir. 2001). T he refore, that clai m i s not tim e-barred either. Pl ai nti ff has tw o re sponses to defe nd ants’ tim el i ness ar gu m ents. Fi rs t, he c onte nd s that the co urt shoul d not rul e o n a s tatute o fl i m itat i ons defe nse in re sponse to a m o ti o n t o di smi ss . S ec o nd, he a ppea l s to Il l i no i s’ s co nti nu i ngt o r tr ul e , wh i c h ho l ds tha twh e n “ a t o r ti nv o l ves a co nti nuing orr epeate d i nj ury, the l i m i tat i ons peri odN o. 08

- 4286 7 does no t b e g i n t o r un un t i l the da t e o f the l a s t i nj ury or the date the tor ti ous a cts ceas e. ” B el le vill e Toyo ta v. To y ota M ot orS al e s , U. S

. A. , 77 0 N

. E.2 d 177, 19 0 (Ill. 20 02)

. Bro oks be l i ev es tha t hi s en ti r e pr o se cut i o n c o ns ti tu te s a co nti nuing tor t. W hi l e co m pla i nts typi cal l y do not ad d re ss affi rm ati ve defen se s, the s ta tu te o fl i m i ta tions may be r ai se d i n a m o ti o n t o d ismi ss i f“ th e al l eg at i o ns o fthe c o m pl aint i tse l fset fo rth eve ry thi ng necessa ryto s ati sfy the affi rm ati ve defe nse. ” U nited States v. Le w is , 41 1 F

. 3d 838, 84 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)

. ( Tec h n i cal l y, o ne m i ght s ee thi s a s a m oti on f orj ud gm ent o n the ple ading s under Rule 12( c) r athe r tha n a mot i o n un d er Rul e 12 ( b) ( 6) , b utthe p ractical effect is the sam e.) W e find i t ap p r o p r ia t e here to c o ns i derthe s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns b ecau se th e r e l e v a n td a t e s a r e s e tf o r th u n a mb i g u o u s l y i n th e c o mp lain t. It is a lso cle ar th at th e c on ti n u i n g t or t ru le d oe s n otap p ly in th is c as e. T h e Su p re m e C o u rtof Illin ois has s tat ed that “w here ther e i s a singl e ove rt a ct fro m whi chs ubs eque ntda m ag es may fl o w, the st atut e be g i ns to run on th e d ate th e d efend an t invad ed the p lai nt iff’ s i nt er es t an d i nfli ct ed i nj ur y, a nd thi s i s so de spi te the continuing nature ofthe i nj ury. ” Feltm eier v. Feltm eier, 79 8 N .E .2d 75 , 85 (Ill. 20 03 ). Th e s i n gle ov er t a c t h er e is Broo ks ’s i nd i ctm ent, ev en i fthe dam age s that Bro oks s u ffe r e d ma y h a v e c o n t i n u e d thr o ug h o u th i s t r i a l

. We th erefore fi nd Br o o k s’ s § 19 83 c o ns pi r ac y c l ai m s an d hi s s t a t e - l a w c i v i l co ns pi r a c y an d I I ED c l a i ms t i me-b a r r e d.8 N o. 08

- 4286 B W hi l e defendants co ncede thatB ro oks ’ s s tat e- l aw m al i ci o us pr osec ut i o n was no t ti m e-ba r r ed, the y a r g ue th at it is b ar re d by so ve re ign im m u n ity . Th e Illino is St ate L aw su i t I m m unity Act st i pu l ate s that t or t s uit s aga i nst the S tat e m ust be pursued i n the I l l i noi s Cou rt o f C lai m s. 705 I LC S 505/ 8( d). This sta tute const i tutes a parti al w ai vero fso ver ei gn i m m unity, pro vi ding Broo ks w ith a c ou r t in w h ich to p u rs u e h is s ta te -law cla im . I t does, however, l eave i ntact sov er ei gn i m m unity forst ate
l aw cl ai m s pursued i n federa l co urt. I n thi s ca se, B ro ok s has chos en to sue em plo yee s o f th e S t a t e o fI l l i n o i s r a th e r th a n th e S t a t e i t s e l f

. A n e mp loy ee ’s c on d u c t c an b e im p u te d to th e St at e if “itis al l ege d t hat the S tat e’ s a gent acte d i n vi ol ati on o f statu tory or const itutiona l law or in ex cess of his au th ori ty. ” Ric hm an v. Sh e ahan , 2 7 0 F

. 3d 430, 441 (7th Cir. 2001). The dis tr i ct c ourtf ound that s overe ign im m unity di d not apply to the s tat e-la w cl ai m s in thi s ca se because Bro oks al l eg e d th a t th e s t a t e a g e n t s a c t e d i n v i o l a t i o n o ft he Con st i tu ti o n. Ric hm an actual l y s up port s a co ntra ryr esul t. I n that c as e, th e d ist r i c t co u rth eld th at so ve re ign im m u n ity d id n otap p ly b ec au se itf o u n d th at th e s ta te -law to rtcla im at i ssue w as not depend ent o n the al leg ed const i tuti onal vi o l a t i o n, b uti ns t e a d o n a the o r y o fwi l fula nd wa nt on negl i gence . W e r eve rs ed and f ound that the depu ties ’ action s w ere w ithin th e scop e of t h e ir aut hority for p urposes o fso ver ei gn i m m unity. Id. at 442. H er e, Bro oks has p l e a de d b o th s t a t e - l a w a nd c o ns t i t ut i o na l c l a i m s;N o. 08

- 4286 9 how ever, the form er are n ot d ep en d en t on th e latter. B ro ok s’s m alic iou s p ro se c u tio n cla im d oe s n otfall und erthe excepti on t o sov er ei gn i m m unity forst ate offi ci al s who have acte d i n exces s ofthei r author i ty, be ca us e “the r e ar e no a l l eg at i o ns tha t th e defen dan t w as ac tin g for a p u rp o s e u n re lat ed to h is e m p loy m en t.” Id. A s a r es u lt, B ro ok s’s m alic iou s p ro se c u tio n cla im i s ba rr ed by sov er ei gn i m m unity.

C A l l thatr em ai ns i s Bro oks ’ s § 19 83 du e proces s claim . T he prim ary groun d on w hich the d istri ct cou rt dism i sse d t h i s cl ai m was that Broo ks had fa i l ed adeq u a t e l y to p l e a d p e r s o n a l i n v o l v e me n t, a s h i s c o mpla i nt st ate d that “ one orm or e o fthe Defe nd ants” had en g ag ed i n c er ta i n a ct s o r de pr i ve d hi m o fhi s co ns tituti o na l r i g ht s. The di st r i ctc o ur t was c o r r ec t to po i nto ut that Broo ks often uses thi s v ague phrasi ng, wh i ch does not adequatel y c onnect speci fi c d efend ants to i l l ega l act s. Se e Ras co n v . Har di m an , 803 F

. 2d 269, 27 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 86) ( “An i ndi vi dual cannotbe h el d l i abl e in a § 19 83 acti on unl es s he ca us ed o r par ti ci pat ed i n an al l eged con st i tu
tional de p rivation.”) ( em p ha sis i n origi na l)

. Som e pa rts of B r o o k s’s com p lai nt, how ever, do sp ecify a par ti cul ardefendant as havi ng eng aged in certa i n acts
. Pa r ag r aph s 70

- 71 , 80 , 84

- 85 , 87, 88

- 90 , an d 92

- 93 of the co m pl aintde sc r ibe defend an t Ro ss a s pr o ducingv ar i o us in ve st iga tiv e re p or t s , on e o f w h ich n am ed B ro ok s. In Par a g r a ph s 8 4 a nd 8 5 , M o nt e s a nd S ul a a r e na med as10 N o. 08

- 4286 havi ng par ti ci pated i n in tervi ew s co nd ucted by Ross. Ponset to and C ar terar e re fer enced i n Para gr aphs 89- 91 as ha vinge i th erb een p re se nto r ha vingb ee n pr es en t an d ass i ste d i n i nter vi ew s o fM i l l erco nd uc te d by Ross o r an oth er i nv estigator. The questio n b efor e us i s whether these f actualal l ega tions p rovid e s u ffici en t notice to d efend an ts of Brooks’s claim s. T his requ ires us to an alyze th e Sup rem e C o u r t’s r ec en td e c i s i o n s i n th i s a r e a , i n c l u d i n gi t s mo s tr e ce nt pr o no unc ementi n Ash crof tv. Iq b al , 129 S. Ct

. 1937 (2009). W e be gi n w i th R u le 8, w hi ch st ate s in re l evantpart : “A p lea d in g th at s ta te s a c laim for re lief m u st co n ta in : . . . a s hor t a nd pl ai n sta tem ent o fthe c laim sho w i ng tha t th e plea der i s e nti tl ed to r el i ef

. ” F ED . R. C IV . P

. 8 ( a)

. The R u le re flec ts a libe ra l no tic e p lea d in g re gim e, w h ich is i n t e n d e d t o “ f o c u s l i t i g a t i o n o n th e m e r i t s o fa c l a i m” rath er than on tech nica lit ies that m ight keep plaintiff s ou t o f co u rt
. S wi e rki e wi cz v. S ore ma N. A. , 534 U

. S. 50 6, 514 (2002 ). I n B ell A tl

. Co rp. v. Tw om bly, 5 50 U. S

. 5 44 ( 20 07 ) , the Cou r t tu r ne d i ts at te nt i o n to what was r equi r ed o f p lai nti ff s a t the pl eadi ng st age. I t co ncl ud ed that pla i nti ff s’ “[ f ] actualal l ega ti ons m u st be e nough to r ai se a r i ght t o re l i efabo ve the s pecula ti ve l eve l

. ” Id. at 555. Th e C ou rt w as car eful to note thatthi s di d not i m pose a proba b i l i t y r e qu i r e me n to n p l a i n t i ff s : “ a w e l l

- p l e a d e d c o mpla i nt m ay proce ed eve n if it s tr i kes a savv y j ud ge that actualpro ofo ftho se f acts i s i m probabl e, a n d t hat a r ecove ry is v er y r em ote and unli kel y. ” Id. at 556. Th e C ou rt d id req u ire , ho w ev er , th at t h e p lain tiffs ’ cla im be “p lau si-N o. 08

- 4286 11 bl e. ” In other w or ds, “i t s i m plycal l s f oreno ugh f acts to ra ise a re aso nabl e e xpectati on that di sco ver y wil l r eve al ev id en c e” su p p or tin g t h e p lain tiff’s alleg at ion s. Id. A ny doubt that Tw om blyhad re pu diat ed the gener al n o t i c e - p l e a d i n gr e g i m e o fR u l e 8 wa s p u tt o r e s tt wo we e k s l a t e r, wh e n the Co urt i s s ue d Eri cks on v. Par dus , 55 1 U .S. 89 , 93 (2 00 7). Eri cks on reit er at ed th at “[s ]p ec ific f acts ar e no t nec ess ar y; the st ate m ent ne ed onl y g i ve th e d efend ant f ai r no ti ce o fwhatthe

. . . c l ai m i s an d the g r o un ds u po n whi c h i tr e s t s ” ( i nt e r na l quo tat i on m ar ks om i tte d) ( om i ssi on i n or i gi nal )

. Thi s co urt too k Tw om blya nd Eri cks on t o g e th e r t o me a n th a t“ a ts o me poi nt the f actualdetai l in a com pla i nt m ay be s o s k e t c hytha tthe c o mpl a i ntdo e s n o tp r o v i de the ty pe ofnot i ce o fthe cl ai m to wh ich t h e defendant i s e nti tl ed und erRule 8. ” A i r b o r n eB e ep e rs & Vi d e o , In c . v . A T &T M ob i l i ty L LC, 499 F.3d 663 , 667 (7th C ir. 2007). T his con tinu es to be the case after Iq b al . Th at ca se cla rifi ed that Tw om bly ’ s pl ausibi l i ty re quir em ent a pp l i es acr oss th e b oa rd , no t ju st to an tit ru st ca se s. Inad d itio n, Iq b al g av e fur th erg ui dan ce to lower c o ur ts i n e va l ua ting co m pl aint s. I t no te d tha t a c o ur t ne ed no t ac ce pt as t r ue “l ega l co ncl usi ons[ , o r t]h readbare r eci tal s o fthe el em en ts of a cau se of action, su p p orted by m e re conc lusory st at ement s. ” W e unde r st an d the Co ur t i n Iq bal to be admoni sh i ngtho se pl aint i ff s who m er ely pa r r o t th e st atut o r y l an g ua g e o fthe c l ai m s th atthe y a re pl ea di ng ( som ethi n g that a nyone coul d do, r ega rdl ess o fwh at m ayb e pr o m pting th e l aws ui t) , r athe r tha n pr o vi di ng som e s peci fi c f acts to gr ound those l ega l cl ai m s, that12 N o. 08

- 4286 th eym us t d o mor e. The se a r e th e pl aint i ff s who have not provi ded the “showing” r equi re d by Rul e 8
. S o , w h a td o w e t a k e a wa y fr o m Tw om bly, Eri cks on , a nd Iq b al ? F i rs t, a pla i nti ffm ust provid e n oti ce t o defe nd ants o fhe rc l ai m s. S ec o nd, c o ur ts musta cc epta pl aint if f’ s f ac tu ala l l eg at i o ns a s tr ue , b uts o m e f ac tu ala l l eg at i o ns wi l l b e so ske t c hyo r i mpl a us ib l e tha tthe y f a i l t o p r o v i de s u ffi c i e n tn o t i c e t o d e fe n d a n t s o fth e p l a i n t i ff’ s c l a i m. Thir d, i n consi deri ng the pl ai nti ff’ s factualal l ega ti ons, co urts s ho ul d no t ac ce pt as a dequa te abs tr ac t r ec i ta ti o ns ofthe el em ents ofa cause ofact i on o r concl usory l ega l sta tem ents. Retu rn in g to the c ase athand, we note that Broo ks has alle ge d th at th e d efe n d an ts en ga ge d in a va rie ty of ac tiv iti es : Ro ss pr o duce d i nv esti gati ve r epo r ts ; M o nt es a nd Sula gave i nt erview s; an d Pon setto an d Ca rter w ere p re se n t a n d as sis te d in in te rv iew s. T h e C ou rtin Twom blysa i d that pl ai nti ff s’ al l ega ti ons ther e o fpara l l el conduct w er e “ consi ste nt with conspi ra cy, but j ust a s mu c h i n l i n e w i th a w i d e s wa th o fr a t i o n a l a n d c o mp e t i t i v e b u s i n e s s s t r a t e g y u n i l a t e r a l l y p r o mp t e d b y c o mm on perce pti ons ofthe m ar ket

. ” Tw om bly, 550 U.S

. at55 4. The C ourtf ound thi s insuffi ci ent t o defe at a m oti on u n d er R u le 1 2(b )(6)

. Id. The s ame i s tr ue h ere. The behavi orBro oks h as al l ege d that the defendants engag ed in is j ust a s co nsi ste nt with l aw ful conduct as i t i s with w ro ngdoi ng. W i thout m or e, Bro oks ’ s a l l ega ti o n s a r e t o o v a 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 ts o ft he c o n t o u r s o fh i s § 1 9 8 3 d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m.N o. 08

- 4286 13 Pa r ag r aph1 02 , i n c o nt rast, do es no t su fferfr o m the d e fi c i e n c i e s th a t c h a r a c t e r i z e th e r e s t o f B r o o k s ’ s c o mpla i nt. I t r eads a s f ol l ows: Pl aint i ffi s i nf o r m ed, b el i ev es a nd a l l eg es th at th e Defe nd ants w hi l e acting i n concer t with other St ate o f I l l i no i s o ffi ci al s an d e m pl o y ee s o fthe A ttor ne y Ge ner al ’ s O ffice, Departm ent o fCor re cti ons and Pri sone r R ev iew B oa rd d id kn ow in g l y , in te n tio n ally an d m alici o us l y pr o se cut e Pl aint i ffand Rona l d M at r i sc i an o in ret alia tio n for P lain tiff a n d t h e s aid R on ald M atr i sci ano exer ci si ng r i ghts and privi l ege s under th e Con st i tu ti o ns a nd l aws o fthe Uni te d S ta te s an d St ate o fI l l i noi s. I n thi s par agr aph, Bro ok s a dequ at ely ple ads pers onal in vo lve m en t, be c au se h e s p e c ifies th at h e is d ire c tin g t h is al l ega ti on a t a l l o fthe defe nd ants. H e a l so describes unlawfulco nd uct, bec ause i t i s no t l aw ful to pr os ec u te som eon e m ali ciously in retali a tion for th at p erson ’s ex er c isin g h er co n st itu tio n al r i g h ts . N on et h ele ss , th is p aragrap h fail s un d er Iqba l, because i t i s m er el y a f o r m ul ai c r ec i tati on ofthe c au se o fa ct i o n a nd no th i ng m or e. I t ther ef or e does not pu t the defe nd ants on n oti ce ofwh at exactl y they m i ght ha ve d one to vi ol ate Broo ks’ s r i ghts un d er the Consti tuti on, federa l l aw , o r s t a t e l a w. Bec au se Bro o k s ha s f ai l ed to g r o und h i s l eg alc o nc l us i o ns i n a s uffi c i e nt l y p l a us ib l e f a c t ua l ba s i s , we c o nc l ud e th at th e d istri ct c o u r t w as correct to grant su m m ary j u d gm en t o n th is c laim as w ell. * * *14 N o. 08

- 4286 For these r eas ons, we A FFIRM th e j u d g me n t o ft he dist ri ct c ourt
.

8- 20- 09