Opinion ID: 69004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, “the plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 2 No. 09-20062 elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citation omitted). In effect, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. (internal citation omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). While pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers, “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not prevent a motion to dismiss.” Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted).