Morgan v. Parmiter et al, No. 9:2022cv00147 - Document 4 (N.D.N.Y 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must file an Amended Complaint as set forth above within thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of this Decision and Order. ORDERED that, if Plaintiff timel y files an Amended Complaint, this matter be returned to the Court for further review. ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to timely file an Amended Complaint as directed, the Clerk shall enter judgment indicating that this action is DISMISSED withou t prejudice without further order of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for failure to comply with this Decision and Order. In that event, the Clerk is directed to close t his case. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff with copies of the unpublished decisions cited herein in accordance with the Second Circuit decision in Lebronv. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). ORDERED th at the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on Plaintiff, together with a copy of the Complaint. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on March 28, 2022. (Attachments: # 1 case law cited, # 2 case law cited, # 3 case law cited, # 4 case law cited, # 5 case law cited, # 6 case law cited) ( Notice of Compliance Deadline 4/29/2022, Case Review Deadline 5/31/2022){order and copy of complaint served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas )

Download PDF

Morgan v. Parmiter et al Doc. 4 Att. 2 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Not Followed as Dicta Feibush v. Johnson, E.D.Pa., 2017 Justice Breyer filed dissenting opinion. November 30, 129 S.Ct. 1937 Supreme Court of the United States John D. ASHCROFT, Former Procedural Posture(s): On Appeal; Motion to Dismiss. West Headnotes (16) [1] Attorney General, et al., Petitioners, v. Javaid IQBAL et al. Federal Courts consent 242 Cases that cite this headnote [2] Newman, Circuit Judge, 490 F.3d 143, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Certiorari was granted. Interlocutory and 41 Cases that cite this headnote [3] Holdings: The Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, held that: Federal Courts Immunity District court decision denying Government officer's claim of qualified immunity can fall within narrow class of appealable orders despite the absence of a final judgment. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. [1] Second Circuit had subject matter jurisdiction to affirm district court's order denying officials' motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity, and 38 Cases that cite this headnote [2] detainee's complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to state claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination. [4] Justice Souter filed dissenting opinion in which Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. Federal Courts Collateral Orders Under “collateral-order doctrine,” limited set of district court orders are reviewable though short of final judgment; orders within this narrow category are immediately appealable because they finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in action, too important to be denied review and too independent of cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until whole case is adjudicated. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. District of New York, John Gleeson, J., 2005 WL 2375202, denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss on ground of qualified immunity. Defendants appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Jon O. Reversed and remanded. Waiver, estoppel, and Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived and should be considered when fairly in doubt. No. 07–1015. | Argued Dec. 10, 2008. | Decided May 18, 2009. Synopsis Background: Muslim Pakistani pretrial detainee brought action against current and former government officials, alleging that they took series of unconstitutional actions against him in connection with his confinement under harsh conditions after separation from the general prison population. The United States District Court for the Eastern Federal Courts Necessity of Objection; Power and Duty of Court Civil Rights Officers Government Agencies and Civil Rights Good faith and reasonableness; knowledge and clarity of law; motive and intent, in general © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... United States Personal involvement; vicarious liability and respondeat superior “Qualified immunity,” which shields Government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, is both a defense to liability and limited entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation. United States Government officials may not be held liable, under Bivens or § 1983, for unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under theory of respondeat superior; because vicarious liability is inapplicable, plaintiff must plead that each government official-defendant, through his or 373 Cases that cite this headnote [5] Federal Courts her own actions, has violated Constitution. U.S.C.A. § 1983. Immunity Provided it turns on issue of law, district court order denying qualified immunity can fall within narrow class of prejudgment orders reviewable under collateral order doctrine; such an order conclusively determines that defendant must bear burdens of discovery, conceptually distinct from merits of plaintiff's claim, and would prove effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. Federal Courts [9] United States Immunity Constitutional Violations; Bivens recognizes implied private action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen's constitutional rights. 383 Cases that cite this headnote [8] Civil Rights Vicarious liability and respondeat superior in general; supervisory liability in general Civil Rights Complaint in general First Amendment in Pleading Factors necessary to establish Bivens violation will vary with constitutional provision at issue, and where claim is invidious discrimination in contravention of First and Fifth Amendments, plaintiff must plead and prove that defendant acted with discriminatory purpose; under extant precedent, “purposeful discrimination” requires more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences and instead involves decisionmaker's undertaking course of action because of, not merely in spite of, action's adverse effects upon identifiable group. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 5. 233 Cases that cite this headnote United States Bivens Claims Constitutional Law General Constitutional Law Intentional or purposeful action requirement Second Circuit had subject matter jurisdiction to affirm district court's order denying government officials' motion to dismiss Muslim Pakistani pretrial detainee's Bivens action on grounds of qualified immunity; because the order turned on issue of law and rejected qualified immunity defense, it was a “final decision” subject to immediate appeal. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. [7] 42 12904 Cases that cite this headnote 173 Cases that cite this headnote [6] Pleading 524 Cases that cite this headnote [10] Federal Civil Procedure in general Claim for relief Requirement that pleading contain a short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief does not require detailed factual allegations, but demands more than unadorned “the defendant unlawfully harmed me” accusation. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 8(a) (2), 28 U.S.C.A. 85150 Cases that cite this headnote © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... [11] Federal Civil Procedure in general 11th detainees once they were categorized as of “high interest,” and complaint thus had to contain facts plausibly showing that officials purposefully adopted policy of so classifying detainees because of their race, religion, or national origin. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 8(a)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. Claim for relief Pleading that offers labels and conclusions or formulaic recitation of elements of cause of action will not do, nor does complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 8(a)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 59216 Cases that cite this headnote [12] Federal Civil Procedure general 1233 Cases that cite this headnote [15] Federal Civil Procedure Matters deemed admitted; acceptance as true of allegations in complaint 226847 Cases that cite this headnote [13] Federal Civil Procedure general Insufficiency in “Plausibility” standard, for complaint to survive motion to dismiss for failure to satisfy short and plain statement requirement, is not akin to probability requirement, but asks for more than sheer possibility that defendant has acted unlawfully. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 8(a)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 240 Cases that cite this headnote [16] Federal Civil Procedure general Sufficiency in Federal Civil Procedure and condition of mind Fraud, mistake Requirement that fraud be pled with particularity does not give party license to evade the less rigid, though still operative, strictures of plain and short statement requirement. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rules 8, 9(b), 28 U.S.C.A. 228 Cases that cite this headnote **1939 *662 Syllabus * Pleading Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, respondent Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim, was arrested on criminal charges and detained by federal officials under restrictive conditions. Iqbal filed a Bivens action against numerous federal officials, including petitioner Ashcroft, the former Attorney General, and petitioner Mueller, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Muslim Pakistani pretrial detainee's Bivens complaint against government officials failed to plead sufficient facts to state claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination; complaint challenged neither constitutionality of detainee's arrest nor his initial detention but rather policy of holding post-September See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that petitioners designated Iqbal a person “of high interest” on account of his race, religion, or national origin, in contravention of the First and Fifth Amendments; that the FBI, under Mueller's direction, arrested and detained thousands of Arab Muslim men as part of 50089 Cases that cite this headnote [14] Actions Basic thrust of qualified immunity doctrine is to free officials from concerns of litigation, including avoidance of disruptive discovery. Insufficiency in To survive motion to dismiss, complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face; claim has “facial plausibility” when plaintiff pleads factual content that allows court to draw reasonable inference that defendant is liable for misconduct alleged. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A. Public Employment United States © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... its September 11 investigation; that petitioners knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject Iqbal to harsh conditions of confinement as a matter of policy, solely on account of the prohibited factors and for no legitimate penological interest; and that Ashcroft was the policy's “principal architect” and Mueller was “instrumental” in its adoption and execution. After the District Court denied petitioners' motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, they invoked the collateral-order doctrine to file an interlocutory appeal in the Second Circuit. Affirming, that court assumed without discussion that it had jurisdiction and focused on the standard set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, for evaluating whether a complaint is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Concluding that Twombly 's “flexible plausibility standard” obliging a pleader to amplify a claim with factual allegations where necessary to render it plausible was inapplicable in the context of petitioners' appeal, the court held that Iqbal's complaint was adequate to allege petitioners' personal involvement in discriminatory decisions which, if true, violated clearly established constitutional law. Held: 1. The Second Circuit had subject-matter jurisdiction to affirm the District **1940 Court's order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss. Pp. 1944 – 1947. (a) Denial of a qualified-immunity claim can fall within the narrow class of prejudgment orders reviewable under the collateral-order doc *663 trine so long as the order “turns on an issue of law.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411. The doctrine's applicability in this context is well established; an order rejecting qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage is a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which vests courts of appeals with “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts.” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 307, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773. Pp. 1945 – 1946. (b) Under these principles, the Court of Appeals had, and this Court has, jurisdiction over the District Court's order. Because the order turned on an issue of law and rejected the qualified-immunity defense, it was a final decision “subject to immediate appeal.” 834. Pp. 1946 – 1947. Behrens, supra, at 307, 116 S.Ct. 2. Iqbal's complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination. Pp. 1947 – 1954. (a) This Court assumes, without deciding, that Iqbal's First Amendment claim is actionable in a Bivens action, see Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254, n. 2, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441. Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, see, e.g., Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611, the plaintiff in a suit such as the present one must plead that each Government-official defendant, through his own individual actions, has violated the Constitution. Purposeful discrimination requires more than “intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences”; it involves a decisionmaker's undertaking a course of action “ ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ [the action's] adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870. Iqbal must plead sufficient factual matter to show that petitioners adopted and implemented the detention policies at issue not for a neutral, investigative reason, but for the purpose of discriminating on account of race, religion, or national origin. Pp. 1947 – 1949. (b) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “[D]etailed factual allegations” are not required, Twombly, 550 U.S., at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, but the Rule does call for sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” id., at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id., at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Two working principles underlie Twombly. First, the tenet that a court must accept a complaint's allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals of a cause of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statements. Id., at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Second, determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is context specific, requiring *664 the reviewing court to draw on its experience and common sense. Id., at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A court considering a motion to dismiss may begin by identifying allegations that, because they are mere conclusions, are not © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the complaint's framework, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well**1941 pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Pp. 1948 – 1951. insufficient pleadings does not turn on the controls placed on (c) Iqbal's pleadings do not comply with Rule 8 under Twombly. Several of his allegations—that petitioners agreed to subject him to harsh conditions as a matter of policy, solely on account of discriminatory factors and for no legitimate penological interest; that Ashcroft was that policy's “principal architect”; and that Mueller was “instrumental” in its adoption and execution—are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true. Moreover, the factual allegations that the FBI, under Mueller, arrested and detained thousands of Arab Muslim men, and that he and Ashcroft approved the detention policy, do not plausibly suggest that petitioners purposefully discriminated on prohibited grounds. Given that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated by Arab Muslims, it is not surprising that a legitimate policy directing law enforcement to arrest and detain individuals because of their suspected link to the attacks would produce a disparate, incidental impact on Arab Muslims, even though the policy's purpose was to target neither Arabs nor Muslims. Even if the complaint's well-pleaded facts gave rise to a plausible inference that Iqbal's arrest was the result of unconstitutional discrimination, that inference alone would not entitle him to relief: His claims against petitioners rest solely on their ostensible policy of holding detainees categorized as “of high interest,” but the complaint does not contain facts plausibly showing that their policy was based on discriminatory factors. Pp. 1950 – 1953. (iii) Rule 9(b)—which requires particularity when pleading “fraud or mistake” but allows “other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally”—does not require courts to credit a complaint's conclusory statements without (d) Three of Iqbal's arguments are rejected. Pp. 1952 – 1954. (i) His claim that Twombly should be limited to its antitrust context is not supported by that case or the Federal Rules. Because Twombly interpreted and applied Rule 8, which in turn governs the pleading standard “in all civil actions,” Rule 1, the case applies to antitrust and discrimination suits alike, see 550 U.S., at 555–556, and n. 3, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Pp. 1952 – 1953. (ii) Rule 8's pleading requirements need not be relaxed based on the Second Circuit's instruction that the District Court cabin discovery to preserve petitioners' qualifiedimmunity defense in anticipation of a summary judgment motion. The question presented by a motion to dismiss for the discovery process. Twombly, supra, at 559, 127 S.Ct. 1955. And because Iqbal's *665 complaint is deficient under Rule 8, he is not entitled to discovery, cabined or otherwise. Pp. 1952 – 1954. reference to its factual context. Rule 9 merely excuses a party from pleading discriminatory intent under an elevated pleading standard. It does not give him license to evade Rule 8's less rigid, though still operative, strictures. Pp. 1953 – 1954. (e) The Second Circuit should decide in the first instance whether to remand to the District Court to allow Iqbal to seek leave to amend his deficient complaint. P. 1954. 490 F.3d 143, reversed and remanded. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined, post, pp. 1954 – **1942 1961. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, pp. 1961 – 1962. Attorneys and Law Firms Gregory G. Garre, Solicitor General, Washington, DC, for Petitioners. Alexander A. Reinert, for Respondents. Lauren J. Resnick, Fernando A. Bohorquez, Jr., Baker & Hostetler LLP, New York, NY, Thomas D. Warren Karl Fanter, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Cleveland, OH, for Michael Rolince. Leslie R. Caldwell, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, NY, Brett M. Schuman, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Kenneth Maxwell. Michael L. Martinez, David E. Bell, Matthew F. Scarlato, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondent Dennis Hasty. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... David J. Ball, Rima J. Oken, Jennifer Brace, Etai Lahav, Well, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, New York, Alexander A. Reinert, Joan M. Magoolaghan, Elizabeth L. Koob, Koob & Magoolaghan, Yonkers, New York, for Respondent Javaid Iqbal. Gregory G. Garre, Acting Solicitor General, Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan F. Cohn, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Curtis E. Gannon, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Barbara L. Herwig, Robert M. Loeb, Sarang Vijay Damle, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Opinion Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. *666 Javaid Iqbal (hereinafter respondent) is a citizen of Pakistan and a Muslim. In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks he was arrested in the United States on criminal charges and detained by federal officials. Respondent claims he was deprived of various constitutional protections while in federal custody. To redress the alleged deprivations, respondent filed a complaint against numerous federal officials, including John Ashcroft, the former Attorney General of the United States, and Robert Mueller, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Ashcroft and Mueller are the petitioners in the case now before us. As to these two petitioners, the complaint alleges that they adopted an unconstitutional policy that subjected respondent to harsh conditions of confinement on account of his race, religion, or national origin. In the District Court petitioners raised the defense of qualified immunity and moved to dismiss the suit, contending the complaint was not sufficient to state a claim against them. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding the complaint was sufficient to state a claim despite petitioners' official status at the times in question. Petitioners brought an interlocutory appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court, without discussion, assumed it had jurisdiction over the order denying the motion to dismiss; and it affirmed the District Court's decision. Respondent's account of his prison ordeal could, if proved, demonstrate unconstitutional misconduct by some governmental actors. But the allegations and pleadings with respect to these actors are not before us here. This case instead turns on a narrower question: Did respondent, as the plaintiff in the District Court, **1943 plead factual matter that, if taken as true, states a claim that petitioners deprived him of his clearly established constitutional rights. We hold respondent's pleadings are insufficient. *667 I Following the 2001 attacks, the FBI and other entities within the Department of Justice began an investigation of vast reach to identify the assailants and prevent them from attacking anew. The FBI dedicated more than 4,000 special agents and 3,000 support personnel to the endeavor. By September 18 “the FBI had received more than 96,000 tips or potential leads from the public.” Dept. of Justice, Office of Inspector General, The September 11 Detainees: A Review of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks 1, 11–12 (Apr.2003), http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/ special/0306/full.pdf?bcsi_scan_61073EC0F74759AD=0 & bcsi_scan_filename =full.pdf (as visited May 14, 2009, and available in Clerk of Court's case file). In the ensuing months the FBI questioned more than 1,000 people with suspected links to the attacks in particular or to terrorism in general. Id., at 1. Of those individuals, some 762 were held on immigration charges; and a 184–member subset of that group was deemed to be “of ‘high interest’ ” to the investigation. Id., at 111. The high-interest detainees were held under restrictive conditions designed to prevent them from communicating with the general prison population or the outside world. Id., at 112–113. Respondent was one of the detainees. According to his complaint, in November 2001 agents of the FBI and Immigration and Naturalization Service arrested him on charges of fraud in relation to identification documents and conspiracy to defraud the United States. Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 147–148 (C.A.2 2007). Pending trial for those crimes, respondent was housed at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, New York. Respondent was designated a person “of high interest” to the September 11 investigation and in January 2002 was placed in a section of the MDC known as the Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit *668 ADMAX SHU). Id., at 148. As the facility's name indicates, the ADMAX SHU incorporates the maximum security conditions allowable under Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations. Ibid. ADMAX SHU detainees were kept in lockdown 23 hours a day, spending the © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... remaining hour outside their cells in handcuffs and leg irons accompanied by a four-officer escort. Ibid. Respondent pleaded guilty to the criminal charges, served a term of imprisonment, and was removed to his native Pakistan. Id., at 149. He then filed a Bivens action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against 34 current and former federal officials and 19 “John Doe” federal corrections officers. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). The defendants range from the correctional officers who had day-to-day contact with respondent during the term of his confinement, to the wardens of the MDC facility, all the way to petitioners— officials who were at the highest level of the federal law enforcement hierarchy. First Amended Complaint in No. 04– CV–1809 (JG)(JA), ¶¶ 10–11, App. to Pet. for Cert. 157a (hereinafter Complaint). The 21–cause–of–action complaint does not challenge respondent's arrest or his confinement in the MDC's general prison population. Rather, it concentrates on his **1944 treatment while confined to the ADMAX SHU. The complaint sets forth various claims against defendants who are not before us. For instance, the complaint alleges that respondent's jailors “kicked him in the stomach, punched him in the face, and dragged him across” his cell without justification, id., ¶ 113, at 176a; subjected him to serial strip and body-cavity searches when he posed no safety risk to himself or others, id., ¶¶ 143–145, at 182a; and refused to let him and other Muslims pray because there would be “[n]o prayers for terrorists,” id., ¶ 154, at 184a. The allegations against petitioners are the only ones relevant here. The complaint contends that petitioners designated *669 respondent a person of high interest on account of his race, religion, or national origin, in contravention of the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The complaint alleges that “the [FBI], under the direction of Defendant MUELLER, arrested and detained thousands of Arab Muslim men ... as part of its investigation of the events of September 11.” Id., ¶ 47, at 164a. It further alleges that “[t]he policy of holding post–September–11th detainees in highly restrictive conditions of confinement until they were ‘cleared’ by the FBI was approved by Defendants ASHCROFT and MUELLER in discussions in the weeks after September 11, 2001.” Id., ¶ 69, at 168a. Lastly, the complaint posits that petitioners “each knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject” respondent to harsh conditions of confinement “as a matter of policy, solely on account of [his] religion, race, and/or national origin and for no legitimate penological interest.” Id., ¶ 96, at 172a–173a. The pleading names Ashcroft as the “principal architect” of the policy, id., ¶ 10, at 157a, and identifies Mueller as “instrumental in [its] adoption, promulgation, and implementation,” id., ¶ 11, at 157a. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state sufficient allegations to show their own involvement in clearly established unconstitutional conduct. The District Court denied their motion. Accepting all of the allegations in respondent's complaint as true, the court held that “it cannot be said that there [is] no set of facts on which [respondent] would be entitled to relief as against” petitioners. Id., at 136a–137a (relying on Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Invoking the collateral-order doctrine petitioners filed an interlocutory appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. While that appeal was pending, this Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), which discussed the standard for evaluating whether a complaint is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. *670 The Court of Appeals considered Twombly' s applicability to this case. Acknowledging that Twombly retired the Conley no-set-of-facts test relied upon by the District Court, the Court of Appeals' opinion discussed at length how to apply this Court's “standard for assessing the adequacy of pleadings.” 490 F.3d, at 155. It concluded that Twombly called for a “flexible ‘plausibility standard,’ which obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible.” Id., at 157–158. The court found that petitioners' appeal did not present one of “those contexts” requiring amplification. As a consequence, it held respondent's pleading adequate to allege petitioners' personal involvement in discriminatory decisions which, if true, violated clearly established constitutional law. at 174. Id., **1945 Judge Cabranes concurred. He agreed that the majority's “discussion of the relevant pleading standards reflect[ed] the uneasy compromise ... between a qualified immunity privilege rooted in the need to preserve the effectiveness of government as contemplated by our © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... constitutional structure and the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id., at 178 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Judge Cabranes nonetheless expressed concern at the prospect of subjecting high-ranking Government officials—entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity and charged with responding to “a national and international security emergency unprecedented in the history of the American Republic”—to the burdens of discovery on the basis of a complaint as nonspecific as respondent's. Id., at 179. Reluctant to vindicate that concern as a member of the Court of Appeals, ibid., Judge Cabranes urged this Court to address the appropriate pleading standard “at the earliest opportunity,” id., at 178. We granted certiorari, 554 U.S. 902, 128 S.Ct. 2931, 171 L.Ed.2d 863 (2008), and now reverse. *671 II [1] We first address whether the Court of Appeals had subject-matter jurisdiction to affirm the District Court's order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss. Respondent disputed subject-matter jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals, but the court hardly discussed the issue. We are not free to pretermit the question. Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived and should be considered when fairly in doubt. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) (citing United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002)). According to respondent, the District Court's order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss is not appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. We disagree. A [2] With exceptions inapplicable here, Congress has vested the courts of appeals with “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Though the statute's finality requirement ensures that “interlocutory appeals—appeals before the end of district court proceedings—are the exception, not the rule,” Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 309, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995), it does not prevent “review of all prejudgment orders,” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 305, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996). Under the collateral-order doctrine a limited set of district-court orders are reviewable “though short of final judgment.” Ibid. The orders within this narrow category “are immediately appealable because they ‘finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949)). [3] [4] [5] A district-court decision denying a Government officer's claim of qualified immunity can fall within the narrow class of appealable orders despite *672 “the absence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). This is so because qualified immunity—which shields Government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights,” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, **1946 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)—is both a defense to liability and a limited “entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” Mitchell, 472 U.S., at 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806. Provided it “turns on an issue of law,” id., at 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, a district-court order denying qualified immunity “ ‘conclusively determine[s]’ ” that the defendant must bear the burdens of discovery; is “conceptually distinct from the merits of the plaintiff's claim”; and would prove “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment,” id., at 527–528 (citing Cohen, supra, at 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221). As a general matter, the collateralorder doctrine may have expanded beyond the limits dictated by its internal logic and the strict application of the criteria set out in Cohen. But the applicability of the doctrine in the context of qualified-immunity claims is well established; and this Court has been careful to say that a district court's order rejecting qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage of a proceeding is a “final decision” within the meaning of § 1291. Behrens, 516 U.S., at 307, 116 S.Ct. 834. B [6] Applying these principles, we conclude that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear petitioners' appeal. The © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... District Court's order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss turned on an issue of law and rejected the defense of qualified immunity. It was therefore a final decision “subject to immediate appeal.” Ibid. Respondent says that “a qualified immunity appeal based solely on the complaint's failure to state a claim, and not on the ultimate issues relevant to the qualified immunity defense itself, is not a proper subject of interlocutory jurisdiction.” Brief for Respondent Iqbal 15 (hereinafter Iqbal Brief). In other words, respondent *673 contends the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to determine whether his complaint avers a clearly established constitutional violation but that it lacked jurisdiction to pass on the sufficiency of his pleadings. Our opinions, however, make clear that appellate jurisdiction is not so strictly confined. Respondent counters that our holding in Johnson, 515 U.S. 304, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238, confirms the want of subject-matter jurisdiction here. That is incorrect. The allegation in Johnson was that five defendants, all of them police officers, unlawfully beat the plaintiff. Johnson considered “the appealability of a portion of” the District Court's summary judgment order *674 that, “though entered in a ‘qualified immunity’ case, determine[d] only” that there was a genuine issue of material fact that three of the defendants participated in the beating. 2151. Id., at 313, 115 S.Ct. In finding that order not a “final decision” for purposes of § 1291, the Johnson Court cited Mitchell for the proposition that only decisions turning “ ‘on an issue of law ’ ” are In Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006), the Court reviewed an interlocutory decision denying qualified immunity. The legal issue decided in Hartman concerned the elements a plaintiff “must plead and prove in order to win” a First Amendment retaliation subject to immediate appeal. 515 U.S., at 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151. Though determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment is a question of law, it is a legal question that sits near the law-fact divide. Or as we said in Johnson, it is a “fact-related” legal inquiry. claim. Id., at 314, 115 S.Ct. 2151. To conduct it, a court of appeals may be required to consult a “vast pretrial record, with numerous conflicting affidavits, depositions, and other Id., at 257, n. 5, 126 S.Ct. 1695. Similarly, two Terms ago in Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537, 127 S.Ct. 2588, 168 L.Ed.2d 389 (2007), the Court considered another interlocutory order denying qualified immunity. The legal issue there was whether a Bivens action can be employed to challenge interference with property rights. 551 U.S., at 549, n. 4, 127 S.Ct. 2588. These cases cannot be squared with respondent's argument that the collateralorder doctrine restricts appellate jurisdiction to the “ultimate issu[e]” whether the legal wrong asserted was a violation of clearly established law while excluding the question whether the facts pleaded establish such a violation. Iqbal Brief 15. Indeed, the latter question is even more clearly within the category of appealable decisions than the questions presented in Hartman and Wilkie, since whether a particular complaint sufficiently alleges a clearly established violation of law cannot be decided in isolation from the facts pleaded. In that sense the sufficiency of respondent's pleadings is both “inextricably intertwined with,” Swint v. Chambers County Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35, 51, 115 S.Ct. 1203, 131 L.Ed.2d 60 (1995), and “directly implicated by,” Hartman, **1947 supra, at 257, n. 5, 126 S.Ct. 1695, the qualifiedimmunity defense. discovery materials.” Id., at 316, 115 S.Ct. 2151. That process generally involves matters more within a district court's ken and may replicate inefficiently questions that will arise on appeal following final judgment. Ibid. Finding those concerns predominant, Johnson held that the collateral orders that are “final” under Mitchell turn on “abstract,” rather than “fact-based,” issues of law. 2151. 515 U.S., at 317, 115 S.Ct. The concerns that animated the decision in Johnson are absent when an appellate court considers the disposition of a motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficient pleadings. True, the categories of “fact-based” and “abstract” legal questions used to guide the Court's decision in Johnson are not well defined. Here, however, the order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss falls well within the latter class. Reviewing that order, the Court of Appeals considered only the allegations contained within the four corners of respondent's complaint; resort to a “vast pretrial record” on petitioners' motion to dismiss was unnecessary. Id., at 316, 115 S.Ct. 2151. And determining whether respondent's complaint has the “heft” to state a claim is a task well within an appellate court's core competency. Twombly, 550 U.S., at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... Evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint is not a “fact-based” question of law, so the problem the Court sought to avoid in Johnson *675 is not implicated here. The District Court's order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss is a final decision under the collateral-order doctrine over which the Court of Appeals had, and this Court has, jurisdiction. We proceed to consider the merits of petitioners' appeal. on a theory of respondeat superior ”). See Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (finding no vicarious III In Twombly, supra, at 553–554, 127 S.Ct. 1955, the Court found it necessary first to discuss the antitrust principles implicated by the complaint. Here too we begin by taking note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim of unconstitutional discrimination against officials entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. [7] In Bivens—proceeding on the theory that a right suggests a remedy—this Court “recognized for the first time an implied private action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen's constitutional rights.” **1948 Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001). Because implied causes of action are disfavored, the Court has been reluctant to extend Bivens liability “to any new context or new category of defendants.” S.Ct. 1695. Cf. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999). Based on the rules our precedents establish, respondent correctly concedes that Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal Brief 46 (“[I]t is undisputed that supervisory Bivens liability cannot be established solely 534 U.S., at 68, 122 S.Ct. 515. See liability for a municipal “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); see also Dunlop v. Munroe, 7 Cranch 242, 269, 3 L.Ed. 329 (1812) (a federal official's liability “will only result from his own neglect in not properly superintending the discharge” of his subordinates' duties); Robertson v. Sichel, 127 U.S. 507, 515–516, 8 S.Ct. 1286, 3 L.Ed. 203 (1888) (“A public officer or agent is not responsible for the misfeasances or positive wrongs, or for the nonfeasances, or negligences, or omissions of duty, of the subagents or servants or other persons properly employed by or under him, in the discharge of his official duties”). Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution. also Wilkie, 551 U.S., at 549–550, 127 S.Ct. 2588. That reluctance might well have disposed of respondent's First Amendment claim of religious discrimination. For while we have allowed a Bivens action to redress a violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth [9] The factors necessary to establish a Bivens violation will vary with the constitutional provision at issue. Where the claim is invidious discrimination in contravention of the First and Fifth Amendments, our decisions make clear that the plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant acted Amendment, see Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979), we have not found an implied damages remedy under the Free Exercise Clause. Indeed, we have declined to extend Bivens to a claim sounding in the First with discriminatory purpose. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 540–541, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993) (opinion of KENNEDY, J.) (First Amendment. Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983). Petitioners do not press this argument, however, so we assume, without deciding, that respondent's First Amendment claim is actionable under Bivens. [8] In the limited settings where Bivens does apply, the implied cause of action is the “federal analog to suits brought against state officials under Rev. Stat. § 1979, *676 U.S.C. § 1983.” 42 Hartman, 547 U.S., at 254, n. 2, 126 Amendment); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 240, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976) (Fifth Amendment). Under extant precedent purposeful discrimination requires more than “intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences.” Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979). It instead involves a decisionmaker's undertaking *677 a course of action “ ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ [the action's] adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” Ibid. It follows that, to state a claim based on a violation of a clearly established right, respondent must plead **1949 © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... sufficient factual matter to show that petitioners adopted and implemented the detention policies at issue not for a neutral, investigative reason but for the purpose of discriminating on account of race, religion, or national origin. Respondent disagrees. He argues that, under a theory of “supervisory liability,” petitioners can be liable for “knowledge and acquiescence in their subordinates' use of discriminatory criteria to make classification decisions among detainees.” Iqbal Brief 45–46. That is to say, respondent believes a supervisor's mere knowledge of his subordinate's discriminatory purpose amounts to the supervisor's violating the Constitution. We reject this argument. Respondent's conception of “supervisory liability” is inconsistent with his accurate stipulation that petitioners may not be held accountable for the misdeeds of their agents. In a § 1983 suit or a Bivens action—where masters do not answer for the torts of their servants—the term “supervisory liability” is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct. In the context of determining whether there is a violation of a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required to impose Bivens liability on the subordinate for unconstitutional discrimination; the same holds true for an official charged with violations arising from his or her superintendent responsibilities. S.Ct. 1955. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Id., [12] [13] To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id., at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id., at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Ibid. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ ” S.Ct. 1955 (brackets omitted). Id., at 557, 127 Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly. First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id., at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (Although for the purposes of a motion to dismiss we must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, we **1950 “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual IV allegation” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hypertechnical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock A the doors of discovery for *679 a plaintiff armed with [10] [11] We turn to respondent's complaint. Under nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing dismiss. Id., at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Determining whether that the pleader is *678 entitled to relief.” As the Court a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court held in Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires L.Ed.2d 929, the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and not require “detailed factual allegations,” but it demands common sense. 490 F.3d, at 157–158. But where the more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmedwell-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than me accusation. Id., at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citing the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged —but it has not “show[n]”—“that the pleader is entitled to Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, relief.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion a cause of action will not do.” 550 U.S., at 555, 127 to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Our decision in Twombly illustrates the two-pronged approach. There, we considered the sufficiency of a complaint alleging that incumbent telecommunications providers had entered an agreement not to compete and to forestall competitive entry, in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Recognizing that § 1 enjoins only anticompetitive conduct “effected by a contract, combination, or conspiracy,” Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 775, 104 S.Ct. 2731, 81 L.Ed.2d 628 (1984), the plaintiffs in Twombly flatly pleaded that the defendants “ha[d] entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy to prevent competitive entry ... and ha[d] agreed not to compete with one another.” 550 U.S., at 551, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (internal quotation marks omitted). The complaint also alleged that the defendants' “parallel course of conduct ... to prevent competition” and inflate prices was indicative of the *680 unlawful agreement alleged. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court held the plaintiffs' complaint deficient under Rule 8. In doing so it first noted that the plaintiffs' assertion of an unlawful agreement was a “ ‘legal conclusion’ ” and, as such, was not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id., at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Had the Court simply credited the allegation of a conspiracy, the plaintiffs would have stated a claim for relief and been entitled to proceed perforce. The Court next addressed the “nub” of the plaintiffs' complaint— the well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegation of parallel behavior—to determine whether it gave rise to a “plausible suggestion of conspiracy.” Id., at 565–566, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Acknowledging that parallel conduct was consistent with an unlawful agreement, the Court nevertheless concluded that it did not plausibly suggest an illicit accord because it was not only compatible with, but indeed was more likely explained by, lawful, unchoreographed free-market behavior. Id., at 567, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Because the well-pleaded fact of parallel conduct, accepted as true, did not plausibly suggest an unlawful agreement, the Court held the plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed. Id., at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. B [14] Under Twombly 's construction of Rule 8, we conclude that respondent's complaint **1951 has not “nudged [his] claims” of invidious discrimination “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Ibid. We begin our analysis by identifying the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Respondent pleads that petitioners “knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject [him]” to harsh conditions of confinement “as a matter of policy, solely on account of [his] religion, race, and/or national origin and for no legitimate penological interest.” Complaint ¶ 96, App. to Pet. for Cert. 173a–174a. The complaint alleges that Ashcroft was the “principal architect” of this invidious policy, *681 id., ¶ 10, at 157a, and that Mueller was “instrumental” in adopting and executing it, id., ¶ 11, at 157a. These bare assertions, much like the pleading of conspiracy in Twombly, amount to nothing more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements” of a constitutional discrimination claim, 550 U.S., at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, namely, that petitioners adopted a policy “ ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group,” Feeney, 442 U.S., at 279, 99 S.Ct. 2282. As such, the allegations are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true. Twombly, 550 U.S., at 554–555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. To be clear, we do not reject these bald allegations on the ground that they are unrealistic or nonsensical. We do not so characterize them any more than the Court in Twombly rejected the plaintiffs' express allegation of a “ ‘contract, combination or conspiracy to prevent competitive entry,’ ” id., at 551, 127 S.Ct. 1955, because it thought that claim too chimerical to be maintained. It is the conclusory nature of respondent's allegations, rather than their extravagantly fanciful nature, that disentitles them to the presumption of truth. We next consider the factual allegations in respondent's complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. The complaint alleges that “the [FBI], under the direction of Defendant MUELLER, arrested and detained thousands of Arab Muslim men ... as part of its investigation of the events of September 11.” Complaint ¶ © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... 47, App. to Pet. for Cert. 164a. It further claims that “[t]he policy of holding post–September–11th detainees in highly restrictive conditions of confinement until they were ‘cleared’ by the FBI was approved by Defendants ASHCROFT and MUELLER in discussions in the weeks after September 11, 2001.” Id., ¶ 69, at 168a. Taken as true, these allegations are consistent with petitioners' purposefully designating detainees “of high interest” because of their race, religion, or national origin. But given more likely explanations, they do not plausibly establish this purpose. *682 The September 11 attacks were perpetrated by 19 Arab Muslim hijackers who counted themselves members in good standing of al Qaeda, an Islamic fundamentalist group. Al Qaeda was headed by another Arab Muslim— Osama bin Laden—and composed in large part of his Arab Muslim disciples. It should come as no surprise that a legitimate policy directing law enforcement to arrest and detain individuals because of their suspected link to the attacks would produce a disparate, incidental impact on Arab Muslims, even though the purpose of the policy was to target neither Arabs nor Muslims. On the facts respondent alleges the arrests Mueller oversaw were likely lawful and justified by his nondiscriminatory intent to detain aliens who were illegally present in the United States and who had potential connections to those who committed terrorist acts. As between that “obvious alternative explanation” for the arrests, Twombly, supra, at 567, 127 S.Ct. 1955, and the purposeful, invidious discrimination respondent **1952 asks us to infer, discrimination is not a plausible conclusion. But even if the complaint's well-pleaded facts give rise to a plausible inference that respondent's arrest was the result of unconstitutional discrimination, that inference alone would not entitle respondent to relief. It is important to recall that respondent's complaint challenges neither the constitutionality of his arrest nor his initial detention in the MDC. Respondent's constitutional claims against petitioners rest solely on their ostensible “policy of holding post– September–11th detainees” in the ADMAX SHU once they were categorized as “of high interest.” Complaint ¶ 69, App. to Pet. for Cert. 168a. To prevail on that theory, the complaint must contain facts plausibly showing that petitioners purposefully adopted a policy of classifying post– September–11 detainees as “of high interest” because of their race, religion, or national origin. *683 have labeled him a person “of high interest” for impermissible reasons, his only factual allegation against petitioners accuses them of adopting a policy approving “restrictive conditions of confinement” for post–September– 11 detainees until they were “ ‘cleared’ by the FBI.” Ibid. Accepting the truth of that allegation, the complaint does not show, or even intimate, that petitioners purposefully housed detainees in the ADMAX SHU due to their race, religion, or national origin. All it plausibly suggests is that the Nation's top law enforcement officers, in the aftermath of a devastating terrorist attack, sought to keep suspected terrorists in the most secure conditions available until the suspects could be cleared of terrorist activity. Respondent does not argue, nor can he, that such a motive would violate petitioners' constitutional obligations. He would need to allege more by way of factual content to “nudg[e]” his claim of purposeful discrimination “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” 550 U.S., at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Twombly, To be sure, respondent can attempt to draw certain contrasts between the pleadings the Court considered in Twombly and the pleadings at issue here. In Twombly, the complaint alleged general wrongdoing that extended over a period of years, id., at 551, 127 S.Ct. 1955, whereas here the complaint alleges discrete wrongs—for instance, beatings—by lower level Government actors. The allegations here, if true, and if condoned by petitioners, could be the basis for some inference of wrongful intent on petitioners' part. Despite these distinctions, respondent's pleadings do not suffice to state a claim. Unlike in Twombly, where the doctrine of respondeat superior could bind the corporate defendant, here, as we have noted, petitioners cannot be held liable unless they themselves acted on account of a constitutionally protected characteristic. Yet respondent's complaint does not contain any factual allegation sufficient to plausibly suggest petitioners' discriminatory state of mind. His pleadings thus do not meet the standard necessary to comply with Rule 8. *684 It is important to note, however, that we express no opinion concerning the sufficiency of respondent's complaint against the defendants who are not before us. Respondent's account of his prison ordeal alleges serious official misconduct that we need not address here. Our decision is limited to the determination that respondent's complaint does not entitle him to relief from petitioners. This the complaint fails to do. Though respondent alleges that various other defendants, who are not before us, may © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... C Respondent offers three arguments that bear on our disposition of his case, but none is persuasive. **1953 1 Respondent first says that our decision in Twombly should be limited to pleadings made in the context of an antitrust dispute. Iqbal Brief 37–38. This argument is not supported by Twombly and is incompatible with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Though Twombly determined the sufficiency of a complaint sounding in antitrust, the decision was based on our interpretation and application of Rule 8. 550 U.S., at 554, 127 S.Ct. 1955. That Rule in turn governs the pleading standard “in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 1. Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading standard for “all civil actions,” ibid., and it applies to antitrust and discrimination suits alike, see 1955. 550 U.S., at 555–556, and n. 3, 127 S.Ct. 2 Respondent next implies that our construction of Rule 8 should be tempered where, as here, the Court of Appeals has “instructed the district court to cabin discovery in such a way as to preserve” petitioners' defense of qualified immunity “as much as possible in anticipation of a summary judgment motion.” Iqbal Brief 27. We have held, however, that the question presented by a motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficient pleadings does not turn on the controls *685 placed upon the discovery process. Twombly, supra, at 559, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (“It is no answer to say that a claim just shy of a plausible entitlement to relief can, if groundless, be weeded out early in the discovery process through careful case management given the common lament that the success of judicial supervision in checking discovery abuse has been on the modest side” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). [15] Our rejection of the careful-case-management approach is especially important in suits where Government-official defendants are entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. The basic thrust of the qualified-immunity doctrine is to free officials from the concerns of litigation, including “avoidance of disruptive discovery.” Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 236, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment). There are serious and legitimate reasons for this. If a Government official is to devote time to his or her duties, and to the formulation of sound and responsible policies, it is counterproductive to require the substantial diversion that is attendant to participating in litigation and making informed decisions as to how it should proceed. Litigation, though necessary to ensure that officials comply with the law, exacts heavy costs in terms of efficiency and expenditure of valuable time and resources that might otherwise be directed to the proper execution of the work of the Government. The costs of diversion are only magnified when Government officials are charged with responding to, as Judge Cabranes aptly put it, “a national and international security emergency unprecedented in the history of the American Republic.” 490 F.3d, at 179. It is no answer to these concerns to say that discovery for petitioners can be deferred while pretrial proceedings continue for other defendants. It is quite likely that, when discovery as to the other parties proceeds, it would prove necessary for petitioners and their counsel to participate in the process to ensure the case does not develop in a misleading or slanted way that causes prejudice to their position. Even *686 if petitioners are not yet themselves subject to discovery orders, then, they would not be free from the burdens of discovery. We decline respondent's invitation to relax the pleading requirements on the **1954 ground that the Court of Appeals promises petitioners minimally intrusive discovery. That promise provides especially cold comfort in this pleading context, where we are impelled to give real content to the concept of qualified immunity for high-level officials who must be neither deterred nor detracted from the vigorous performance of their duties. Because respondent's complaint is deficient under Rule 8, he is not entitled to discovery, cabined or otherwise. 3 Respondent finally maintains that the Federal Rules expressly allow him to allege petitioners' discriminatory intent “generally,” which he equates with a conclusory allegation. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 14 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... Iqbal Brief 32 (citing Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 9). It follows, respondent says, that his complaint is sufficiently well pleaded because it claims that petitioners discriminated against him “on account of [his] religion, race, and/or national origin and for no legitimate penological interest.” Complaint ¶ 96, App. to Pet. for Cert. 172a–173a. Were we required to accept this allegation as true, respondent's complaint would survive petitioners' motion to dismiss. But the Federal Rules do not require courts to credit a complaint's conclusory statements without reference to its factual context. [16] It is true that Rule 9(b) requires particularity when pleading “fraud or mistake,” while allowing “[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally.” But “generally” is a relative term. In the context of Rule 9, it is to be compared to the particularity requirement applicable to fraud or mistake. Rule 9 merely excuses a party from pleading discriminatory intent under an elevated pleading standard. It does not give him license *687 to evade the less rigid—though still operative—strictures of Rule 8. See 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1301, p. 291 (3d ed. 2004) (“[A] rigid rule requiring the detailed pleading of a condition of mind would be undesirable because, absent overriding considerations pressing for a specificity requirement, as in the case of averments of fraud or mistake, the general ‘short and plain statement of the claim’ mandate in Rule 8(a) ... should control the second sentence of Rule 9(b)”). And Rule 8 does not empower respondent to plead the bare elements of his cause of action, affix the label “general allegation,” and expect his complaint to survive a motion to dismiss. V We hold that respondent's complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination against petitioners. The Court of Appeals should decide in the first instance whether to remand to the District Court so that respondent can seek leave to amend his deficient complaint. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Justice SOUTER, with whom Justice STEVENS, Justice GINSBURG, and Justice BREYER join, dissenting. This case is here on the uncontested assumption that Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), allows personal liability based on a federal officer's violation of an individual's rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, and it comes to us with the explicit concession of petitioners Ashcroft and Mueller that an officer may be subject to Bivens liability as a supervisor on grounds other than respondeat **1955 superior. The Court apparently rejects this concession and, although it has no bearing on the majority's *688 resolution of this case, does away with supervisory liability under Bivens. The majority then misapplies the pleading standard under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), to conclude that the complaint fails to state a claim. I respectfully dissent from both the rejection of supervisory liability as a cognizable claim in the face of petitioners' concession, and from the holding that the complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I A Respondent Iqbal was arrested in November 2001 on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and fraud in relation to identification documents, and was placed in pretrial detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 147–148 (C.A.2 2007). He alleges that Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials carried out a discriminatory policy by designating him as a person “ ‘of high interest’ ” in the investigation of the September 11 attacks solely because of his race, religion, or national origin. Owing to this designation he was placed in the detention center's Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit for over six months while awaiting the fraud trial. Id., at 148. As I will mention more fully below, Iqbal contends that Ashcroft and Mueller were at the very least aware of the discriminatory detention policy and condoned it (and perhaps even took It is so ordered. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 15 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... part in devising it), thereby violating his First and Fifth Amendment rights. 1 Iqbal claims that on the day he was transferred to the special unit, prison guards, without provocation, “picked him up and threw him against the wall, kicked him in the stomach, *689 punched him in the face, and dragged him across the room.” First Amended Complaint in No. 04–CV–1809 (JG)(JA), ¶ 113, App. to Pet. for Cert. 176a (hereinafter Complaint). He says that after being attacked a second time he sought medical attention but was denied care for two weeks. Id., ¶¶ 187–188, at 189a. According to Iqbal's complaint, prison staff in the special unit subjected him to unjustified strip and body cavity searches, id., ¶¶ 136–140, at 181a, verbally berated him as a “ ‘terrorist’ ” and “ ‘Muslim killer,’ ” id., ¶ 87, at 170a–171a, refused to give him adequate food, id., ¶ 91, at 171a–172a, and intentionally turned on air conditioning during the winter and heating during the summer, id., ¶ 84, at 170a. He claims that prison staff interfered with his attempts to pray and engage in religious study, id., ¶¶ 153–154, at 183a–184a, and with his access to counsel, id., ¶¶ 168, 171, at 186a–187a. The District Court denied Ashcroft and Mueller's motion to dismiss Iqbal's discrimination claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Ashcroft and Mueller then asked this Court to grant certiorari on two questions: they would be liable if they had “actual knowledge” of discrimination by their subordinates and exhibited “ ‘deliberate indifference’ ” to that discrimination. Pet. for Cert. 29 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). Instead, they asked the Court to address whether Iqbal's allegations against them (which they call conclusory) were sufficient to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2), and in particular whether the Court of Appeals misapplied our decision in Twombly construing that rule. Pet. for Cert. 11–24. In the second question, Ashcroft and Mueller asked this Court to say whether they could be held personally liable for the actions of their subordinates based on the theory that they had constructive notice of their subordinates' unconstitutional conduct. Id., at 25–33. This was an odd question to pose, since Iqbal has never claimed that Ashcroft and Mueller are liable on a constructive notice theory. Be that as it may, the second question challenged only one possible ground for imposing supervisory liability under Bivens. In sum, both questions assumed that a defendant could raise a Bivens claim on theories of supervisory liability other than constructive notice, and neither question asked the parties or the Court to address the elements of such liability. The Court granted certiorari on both questions. The first is about pleading; the second goes to the liability standard. The briefing at the merits stage was no different. Ashcroft and Mueller argued that the factual allegations in Iqbal's complaint were insufficient to overcome their claim of qualified immunity; they also contended that they could not be held liable on a theory of constructive notice. Again they conceded, however, that they would be subject to supervisory liability if they “had actual knowledge of the assertedly discriminatory nature of the classification of suspects as *691 being ‘of high interest’ and they were deliberately indifferent to that discrimination.” Brief for Petitioners 50; see also Reply Brief for Petitioners 21–22. Iqbal argued that the allegations in his complaint were sufficient under Rule 8(a)(2) and Twombly, and conceded that as a matter of law he could not recover under a theory of respondeat superior. See Brief for Respondent Iqbal 46. Thus, the parties agreed as to a proper standard of supervisory liability, and the disputed question was whether Iqbal's complaint satisfied Rule 8(a)(2). *690 In the first question, Ashcroft and Mueller did not ask whether “a cabinet-level officer or other high-ranking official” who “knew of, condoned, or agreed to subject a plaintiff to allegedly unconstitutional acts committed by subordinate officials” was subject to liability under Bivens. In fact, they conceded in their petition for certiorari that Without acknowledging the parties' agreement as to the standard of supervisory liability, the Court asserts that it must sua sponte decide the scope of supervisory liability here. Ante, at 1947 – 1949. I agree that, absent Ashcroft and Mueller's concession, that determination would have to be made; without knowing the elements of a supervisory liability “1. Whether a conclusory allegation that a cabinet-level officer or other high-ranking official knew of, condoned, or agreed to subject a plaintiff to allegedly unconstitutional acts purportedly committed by subordinate officials is sufficient to state individual-capacity claims against those officials under Bivens. **1956 “2. Whether a cabinet-level officer or other high-ranking official may be held personally liable for the allegedly unconstitutional acts of subordinate officials on the ground that, as high-level supervisors, they had constructive notice of the discrimination allegedly carried out by such subordinate officials.” Pet. for Cert. I. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 16 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... claim, there would be no way to determine whether a plaintiff had made factual allegations amounting to grounds for relief on that claim. See Twombly, 550 U.S., at 557–558, 127 S.Ct. 1955. But deciding the scope of supervisory **1957 Bivens liability in this case is uncalled for. There are several reasons, starting with the position Ashcroft and Mueller have taken and following from it. First, Ashcroft and Mueller have, as noted, made the critical concession that a supervisor's knowledge of a subordinate's unconstitutional conduct and deliberate indifference to that conduct are grounds for Bivens liability. Iqbal seeks to recover on a theory that Ashcroft and Mueller at least knowingly acquiesced (and maybe more than acquiesced) in the discriminatory acts of their subordinates; if he can show this, he will satisfy Ashcroft and Mueller's own test for supervisory liability. See Farmer, supra, at 842, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (explaining that a prison official acts with “deliberate indifference” if “the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm”). We do not normally override a party's concession, see, e.g., *692 United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U.S. 843, 855, 116 S.Ct. 1793, 135 L.Ed.2d 124 (1996) (holding that “[i]t would be inappropriate for us to [e]xamine in this case, without the benefit of the parties' briefing,” an issue the Government had conceded), and doing so is especially inappropriate when, as here, the issue is unnecessary to decide the case, see infra, at 1958 – 1959. I would therefore accept Ashcroft and Mueller's concession for purposes of this case and proceed to consider whether the complaint alleges at least knowledge and deliberate indifference. Second, because of the concession, we have received no briefing or argument on the proper scope of supervisory liability, much less the full-dress argument we normally require. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 676–677, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). We consequently are in no position to decide the precise contours of supervisory liability here, this issue being a complicated one that has divided the Courts of Appeals. See infra, at 1957 – 1959. This Court recently remarked on the danger of “bad decisionmaking” when the briefing on a question is “woefully inadequate,” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 239, 129 S.Ct. 808, 819, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), yet today the majority answers a question with no briefing at all. The attendant risk of error is palpable. Finally, the Court's approach is most unfair to Iqbal. He was entitled to rely on Ashcroft and Mueller's concession, both in their petition for certiorari and in their merits briefs, that they could be held liable on a theory of knowledge and deliberate indifference. By overriding that concession, the Court denies Iqbal a fair chance to be heard on the question. B The majority, however, does ignore the concession. According to the majority, because Iqbal concededly cannot recover on a theory of respondeat superior, it follows that he cannot recover under any theory of supervisory liability. Ante, at 1948 – 1949. The majority says that in a Bivens action, “where masters do not answer for the torts of their servants,” “the term ‘supervisory liability’ is a misnomer,” and *693 that “[a]bsent vicarious liability, each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct.” Ibid. Lest there be any mistake, in these words the majority is not narrowing the scope of supervisory liability; it is eliminating Bivens supervisory liability entirely. The nature of a supervisory liability theory is that the supervisor may be liable, under certain conditions, for the wrongdoing of his subordinates, and it is this very principle that the majority rejects. Ante, at 1952 (“[P]etitioners cannot be held liable unless they themselves **1958 acted on account of a constitutionally protected characteristic”). The dangers of the majority's readiness to proceed without briefing and argument are apparent in its cursory analysis, which rests on the assumption that only two outcomes are possible here: respondeat superior liability, in which “[a]n employer is subject to liability for torts committed by employees while acting within the scope of their employment,” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 2.04 (2005), or no supervisory liability at all. The dichotomy is false. Even if an employer is not liable for the actions of his employee solely because the employee was acting within the scope of employment, there still might be conditions to render a supervisor liable for the conduct of his subordinate. See, e.g., Whitfield v. Melendez–Rivera, 431 F.3d 1, 14 (C.A.1 2005) (distinguishing between respondeat superior liability and supervisory liability); Bennett v. Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810, 818 (C.A.6 2005) (same); Richardson v. Goord, 347 F.3d © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... 431, 435 (C.A.2 2003) (same); 954, 961 (C.A.8 1993) (same). Hall v. Lombardi, 996 F.2d In fact, there is quite a spectrum of possible tests for supervisory liability: it could be imposed where a supervisor has actual knowledge of a subordinate's constitutional violation and acquiesces, see, e.g., Baker v. Monroe Twp., 50 F.3d 1186, 1194 (C.A.3 1995); Woodward v. Worland, 977 F.2d 1392, 1400 (C.A.10 1992); or where supervisors “ ‘know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a *694 blind eye for fear of what they might see,’ ” International Action Center v. United States, 365 F.3d 20, 28 (C.A.D.C.2004) (Roberts, J.) (quoting Jones v. Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 992 (C.A.7 1988) (Posner, J.)); or where the supervisor has no actual knowledge of the violation but was reckless in his supervision of the subordinate, see, e.g., Hall, supra, at 961; or where the supervisor was grossly negligent, see, e.g., Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881, 902 (C.A.1 1988). I am unsure what the general test for supervisory liability should be, and in the absence of briefing and argument I am in no position to choose or devise one. Neither is the majority, but what is most remarkable about its foray into supervisory liability is that its conclusion has no bearing on its resolution of the case. The majority says that all of the allegations in the complaint that Ashcroft and Mueller authorized, condoned, or even were aware of their subordinates' discriminatory conduct are “conclusory” and therefore are “not entitled to be assumed true.” Ante, at 1951. As I explain below, this conclusion is unsound, but on the majority's understanding of Rule 8(a)(2) pleading standards, even if the majority accepted Ashcroft and Mueller's concession and asked whether the complaint sufficiently alleges knowledge and deliberate indifference, it presumably would still conclude that the complaint fails to plead sufficient facts and must be dismissed. 2 II Given petitioners' concession, the complaint satisfies Rule 8(a)(2). Ashcroft and Mueller admit they are liable for their subordinates' conduct if they “had actual knowledge of the assertedly discriminatory nature of the classification of suspects *695 as being ‘of high interest’ and they were deliberately indifferent to that discrimination.” Brief for Petitioners 50. Iqbal alleges **1959 that after the September 11 attacks the FBI “arrested and detained thousands of Arab Muslim men,” Complaint ¶ 47, App. to Pet. for Cert. 164a, that many of these men were designated by high-ranking FBI officials as being “ ‘of high interest,’ ” id., ¶¶ 48, 50, at 164a, and that in many cases, including Iqbal's, this designation was made “because of the race, religion, and national origin of the detainees, and not because of any evidence of the detainees' involvement in supporting terrorist activity,” id., ¶ 49, at 164a. The complaint further alleges that Ashcroft was the “principal architect of the policies and practices challenged,” id., ¶ 10, at 157a, and that Mueller “was instrumental in the adoption, promulgation, and implementation of the policies and practices challenged,” id., ¶ 11, at 157a. According to the complaint, Ashcroft and Mueller “knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject [Iqbal] to these conditions of confinement as a matter of policy, solely on account of [his] religion, race, and/or national origin and for no legitimate penological interest.” Id., ¶ 96, at 172a–173a. The complaint thus alleges, at a bare minimum, that Ashcroft and Mueller knew of and condoned the discriminatory policy their subordinates carried out. Actually, the complaint goes further in alleging that Ashcroft and Mueller affirmatively acted to create the discriminatory detention policy. If these factual allegations are true, Ashcroft and Mueller were, at the very least, aware of the discriminatory policy being implemented and deliberately indifferent to it. Ashcroft and Mueller argue that these allegations fail to satisfy the “plausibility standard” of Twombly. They contend that Iqbal's claims are implausible because such high-ranking officials “tend not to be personally involved in the specific actions of lower-level officers down the bureaucratic chain of command.” Brief for Petitioners 28. But this response bespeaks a fundamental misunderstanding of the enquiry *696 that Twombly demands. Twombly does not require a court at the motion-to-dismiss stage to consider whether the factual allegations are probably true. We made it clear, on the contrary, that a court must take the allegations as true, no matter how skeptical the court may be. See 550 U.S., at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (a court must proceed “on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)”); id., at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (“[A] wellpleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of the facts alleged is improbable”); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) does not © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 18 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations”). The sole exception to this rule lies with allegations that are sufficiently fantastic to defy reality as we know it: claims about little green men, or the plaintiff's recent trip to Pluto, or experiences in time travel. That is not what we have here. Under Twombly, the relevant question is whether, assuming the factual allegations are true, the plaintiff has stated a ground for relief that is plausible. That is, in Twombly 's words, a plaintiff must “allege facts” that, taken as true, are “suggestive of illegal conduct.” 550 U.S., at 564, n. 8, 127 S.Ct. 1955. In Twombly, we were faced with allegations of a conspiracy to violate § 1 of the Sherman Act through parallel conduct. The difficulty was that the conduct alleged was “consistent with conspiracy, but just as much in line with a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market.” Id., at 554, 127 S.Ct. 1955. We held that in **1960 that sort of circumstance, “[a]n allegation of parallel conduct is ... much like a naked assertion of conspiracy in a §1 complaint: it gets the complaint close to stating a claim, but without some further factual enhancement it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id., at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (brackets omitted). Here, by contrast, the allegations in the complaint are neither confined to naked legal conclusions nor consistent *697 with legal conduct. The complaint alleges that FBI officials discriminated against Iqbal solely on account of his race, religion, and national origin, and it alleges the knowledge and deliberate indifference that, by Ashcroft and Mueller's own admission, are sufficient to make them liable for the illegal action. Iqbal's complaint therefore contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Id., at I do not understand the majority to disagree with this understanding of “plausibility” under Twombly. Rather, the majority discards the allegations discussed above with regard to Ashcroft and Mueller as conclusory, and is left considering only two statements in the complaint: that “the [FBI], under the direction of Defendant MUELLER, arrested and detained thousands of Arab Muslim men ... as part of its investigation of the events of September 11,” Complaint ¶ 47, App. to Pet. for Cert. 164a, and that “[t]he policy of holding post– September–11th detainees in highly restrictive conditions of confinement until they were ‘cleared’ by the FBI was approved by Defendants ASHCROFT and MUELLER in discussions in the weeks after September 11, 2001,” id., ¶ 69, at 168a. See ante, at 1951. I think the majority is right in saying that these allegations suggest only that Ashcroft and Mueller “sought to keep suspected terrorists in the most secure conditions available until the suspects could be cleared of terrorist activity,” ante, at 1952, and that this produced “a disparate, incidental impact on Arab Muslims,” ante, at 1951 – 1952. And I agree that the two allegations selected by the majority, standing alone, do not state a plausible entitlement to relief for unconstitutional discrimination. But these allegations do not stand alone as the only significant, nonconclusory statements in the complaint, for the complaint contains many allegations linking Ashcroft and Mueller to the discriminatory practices of their subordinates. See Complaint ¶ 10, App. to Pet. for Cert. 157a (Ashcroft was the “principal architect” of the discriminatory policy); *698 id., ¶ 11, at 157a (Mueller was “instrumental” in adopting and executing the discriminatory policy); id., ¶ 96, at 172a–173a (Ashcroft and Mueller “knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject” Iqbal to harsh conditions “as a matter of policy, solely on account of [his] religion, race, and/ or national origin and for no legitimate penological interest”). The majority says that these are “bare assertions” that, “much like the pleading of conspiracy in Twombly, amount to nothing more than a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements' of a constitutional discrimination claim” and therefore are “not entitled to be assumed true.” Ante, at 1951 (quoting Twombly, supra, at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955). The fallacy of the majority's position, however, lies in looking at the relevant assertions in isolation. The complaint contains specific allegations that, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Chief of the FBI's International Terrorism Operations Section and the Assistant Special Agent in Charge for the FBI's New York Field Office implemented a policy that discriminated against Arab Muslim men, including Iqbal, solely on account of their race, religion, or national origin. See **1961 Complaint ¶¶ 47–53, supra, 49 164a–165a. Viewed in light of these subsidiary allegations, the allegations singled out by the majority as “conclusory” are no such thing. Iqbal's claim is not that Ashcroft and Mueller “knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject” him to a discriminatory practice that is left undefined; his allegation is that “they knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject” him to a particular, discrete, discriminatory policy detailed in the complaint. Iqbal does not say merely that Ashcroft was the architect of some amorphous © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 19 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... discrimination, or that Mueller was instrumental in an illdefined constitutional violation; he alleges that they helped to create the discriminatory policy he has described. Taking the complaint as a whole, it gives Ashcroft and Mueller “ ‘fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it *699 rests.’ ” Twombly, 550 U.S., at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) (omission in original)). That aside, the majority's holding that the statements it selects are conclusory cannot be squared with its treatment of certain other allegations in the complaint as nonconclusory. For example, the majority takes as true the statement that “[t]he policy of holding post–September–11th detainees in highly restrictive conditions of confinement until they were ‘cleared’ by the FBI was approved by Defendants ASHCROFT and MUELLER in discussions in the weeks after September 11, 2001.” Complaint ¶ 69, supra, at 168a; see ante, at 1951. This statement makes two points: (1) after September 11, the FBI held certain detainees in highly restrictive conditions, and (2) Ashcroft and Mueller discussed and approved these conditions. If, as the majority says, these allegations are not conclusory, then I cannot see why the majority deems it merely conclusory when Iqbal alleges that (1) after September 11, the FBI designated Arab Muslim detainees as being of “ ‘high interest’ ” “because of the race, religion, and national origin of the detainees, and not because of any evidence of the detainees' involvement in supporting terrorist activity,” Complaint ¶¶ 48–50, App. to Pet. for Cert. 164a, and (2) Ashcroft and Mueller “knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed” to that discrimination, id., ¶ 96, at 172a. By my lights, there is no principled basis for the majority's disregard of the allegations linking Ashcroft and Mueller to their subordinates' discrimination. I respectfully dissent. Justice BREYER, dissenting. I agree with Justice SOUTER and join his dissent. I write separately to point out that, like the Court, I believe it important to prevent unwarranted litigation from interfering with “the proper execution of the work of the Government.” Ante, at 1953. But I cannot find in that need adequate justification for the Court's interpretation of Bell *700 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The law, after all, provides trial courts with other legal weapons designed to prevent unwarranted interference. As the Second Circuit explained, where a Government defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, a trial court, responsible for managing a case and “mindful of the need to vindicate the purpose of the qualified immunity defense,” can structure discovery in ways that diminish the risk of imposing unwarranted burdens upon public officials. See Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 158 (2007). A district court, for example, can begin discovery with lower level Government defendants before determining whether a case can be made to allow **1962 discovery related to higher level Government officials. See ibid. Neither the briefs nor the Court's opinion provides convincing grounds for finding these alternative case-management tools inadequate, either in general or in the case before us. For this reason, as well as for the independently sufficient reasons set forth in Justice SOUTER's opinion, I would affirm the Second Circuit. All Citations 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785, 73 Fed.R.Serv.3d 837, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5961, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7005, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 853 Footnotes * The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions 1 for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499. Iqbal makes no claim against Ashcroft and Mueller based simply on his right, as a pretrial detainee, to be free from punishment prior to an adjudication of guilt on the fraud charges. See 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 20 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 77 USLW 4387, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,785... 2 If I am mistaken, and the majority's rejection of the concession is somehow outcome determinative, then its approach is even more unfair to Iqbal than previously explained, see supra, at 1957, for Iqbal had no reason to argue the (apparently dispositive) supervisory liability standard in light of the concession. End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 21 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Not Followed on State Law Grounds Combs v. ICG Hazard, LLC, E.D.Ky., March 21, 2013 127 S.Ct. 1955 Supreme Court of the United States BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. William TWOMBLY et al. No. 05–1126. | Argued Nov. 27, 2006. | Decided May 21, 2007. [4] consumers' allegations of parallel conduct were insufficient to state a claim. Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joined in part. Procedural Posture(s): Motion to Dismiss. West Headnotes (18) [1] Because Sherman Act's restraint of trade provision does not prohibit all unreasonable restraints of trade but only restraints effected by a contract, combination, or conspiracy, the crucial question is whether the challenged anticompetitive conduct stems from independent decision or from an agreement, tacit or express. Synopsis Background: Consumers brought putative class action against incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) alleging antitrust conspiracy, in violation of the Sherman Act, both to prevent competitive entry into local telephone and Internet service markets and to avoid competing with each other in their respective markets. The United States District Court for Sherman Act, § 1, the Southern District of New York, Gerard Lynch, J., 313 F.Supp.2d 174, dismissed complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 425 F.3d 99, reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. [2] would entitle him to relief, abrogating Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80; and Antitrust and Trade Regulation Admissibility While a showing of parallel business behavior is admissible circumstantial evidence from which the fact finder may infer agreement, it falls short of conclusively establishing agreement or itself constituting an offense under the Sherman Act's [1] stating a claim under Sherman Act's restraint of trade provision requires a complaint with enough factual matter, taken as true, to suggest that an agreement was made; [3] dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted does not require appearance, beyond a doubt, that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of claim that 15 U.S.C.A. § 1. 185 Cases that cite this headnote Holdings: The Supreme Court, Justice Souter, held that: [2] an allegation of parallel business conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not alone suffice to state a claim under the Sherman Act; Antitrust and Trade Regulation Cartels, Combinations, Contracts, and Conspiracies in General restraint of trade provision. Sherman Act, § 1, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1. 34 Cases that cite this headnote [3] Antitrust and Trade Regulation Cartels, Combinations, Contracts, and Conspiracies in General Conscious parallelism with respect to business behavior, a common reaction of firms in a concentrated market that recognize their shared © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... economic interests and their interdependence with respect to price and output decisions, is not in itself unlawful under Sherman Act's restraint of trade provision. Sherman Act, U.S.C.A. § 1. § 1, relief can be granted does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A. 15 49 Cases that cite this headnote [4] Antitrust and Trade Regulation Cartels, Combinations, Contracts, and Conspiracies in General 163805 Cases that cite this headnote [8] An antitrust conspiracy plaintiff with evidence showing nothing beyond parallel conduct on part of defendants is not entitled to a directed verdict. Sherman Act, § 1, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1. To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A. Antitrust and Trade Regulation Restraints and misconduct in general Proof of a conspiracy under Sherman Act's restraint of trade provision must include evidence tending to exclude the possibility of independent action. Sherman Act, U.S.C.A. § 1. § 1, 15 186904 Cases that cite this headnote [9] Federal Civil Procedure price discrimination cases Antitrust and At the summary judgment stage, an offer of conspiracy evidence by a plaintiff alleging violation of Sherman Act's restraint of trade provision must tend to rule out the possibility that the defendants were acting independently. Sherman Act, § 1, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1. 112 Cases that cite this headnote [7] Federal Civil Procedure in general Claim for relief Federal Civil Procedure general Insufficiency in While a complaint attacked by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which Federal Civil Procedure in general Claim for relief While, for most types of cases, the Federal Rules eliminated the cumbersome requirement that a claimant set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim, the general rule governing pleadings still requires a showing, rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief; without some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant could satisfy the requirement of providing not only fair notice of the nature of the claim, but also grounds on which the claim rests. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 8(a)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 31 Cases that cite this headnote [6] Insufficiency in Federal Civil Procedure Matters deemed admitted; acceptance as true of allegations in complaint 41 Cases that cite this headnote [5] Federal Civil Procedure general 29752 Cases that cite this headnote [10] Antitrust and Trade Regulation Conspiracy or combination Stating a claim under Sherman Act's restraint of trade provision requires a complaint with enough factual matter, taken as true, to suggest that an agreement was made; asking for plausible © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... Federal Civil Procedure nature of insufficiency grounds to infer an agreement does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage, but simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement. Sherman Act, U.S.C.A. § 1. § 1, Dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted does not require appearance, beyond a doubt, that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of claim that would entitle him to relief, although once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint; abrogating 15 20506 Cases that cite this headnote [11] Federal Civil Procedure nature of insufficiency Clear or certain Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A. A well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely. 7131 Cases that cite this headnote [12] 51889 Cases that cite this headnote [15] Antitrust and Trade Regulation Conspiracy or combination § 1, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Conspiracy or combination Consumers' allegations that, by virtue of parallel conduct, incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) entered into a contract, combination, or conspiracy to prevent competitive entry into their local telephone and Internet service markets, and agreed not to compete with one another, failed to state claim for violation of Sherman Act's restraint of trade provision, as claim essentially rested on descriptions of parallel conduct and not on any independent allegation of actual An allegation of parallel business conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice to state a claim under Sherman Act's restraint of trade provision; without more, parallel conduct does not suggest conspiracy, and a conclusory allegation of agreement at some unidentified point does not supply facts adequate to show illegality. Sherman Act, § 1. Clear or certain 15 U.S.C.A. agreement among the ILECs. Sherman Act, 1, 1375 Cases that cite this headnote § 15 U.S.C.A. § 1. 353 Cases that cite this headnote [13] Antitrust and Trade Regulation Conspiracy or combination When allegations of parallel conduct are set out in order to make a claim under the Sherman Act's restraint of trade provision, they must be placed in a context that raises a suggestion of a preceding agreement, not merely parallel conduct that could just as well be independent action. Sherman Act, § 1, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1. 545 Cases that cite this headnote [14] Federal Civil Procedure in general Claim for relief [16] Evidence Newspaper articles and other published information Where antitrust complaint quoted portion of statement of one defendant's chief executive officer (CEO) to suggest that defendants conspired together, district court was entitled to take notice of the full contents of the published articles referenced in the complaint, from which the truncated quotations were drawn. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 201, 28 U.S.C.A. 418 Cases that cite this headnote © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... [17] Federal Civil Procedure Procedure Rules of Civil Broadening of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure can only be accomplished by the process of amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation. 106 Cases that cite this headnote [18] Federal Civil Procedure Certainty, Definiteness and Particularity On certain subjects understood to raise a high risk of abusive litigation, a plaintiff must state factual allegations with greater particularity than that required by general rule governing pleadings. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rules 8, c), 28 U.S.C.A. 9(b– 218 Cases that cite this headnote conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” The complaint alleges that the ILECs conspired to restrain trade (1) by engaging in parallel conduct in their respective service areas to inhibit the growth of upstart CLECs; and (2) by agreeing to refrain from competing against one another, as indicated by their common failure to pursue attractive business opportunities in contiguous markets and by a statement by one ILEC's chief executive officer that competing in another ILEC's territory did not seem right. The District Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that parallel business conduct allegations, taken alone, do not state a claim under § 1; plaintiffs must allege additional facts tending to exclude independent self-interested conduct as an explanation for the parallel actions. Reversing, the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs' parallel conduct allegations were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss because the ILECs failed to show that there is no set of facts that would permit plaintiffs to demonstrate that the particular parallelism asserted was the product of collusion rather than coincidence. *545 Held: **1958 *544 Syllabus * The 1984 divestiture of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company's (AT & T) local telephone business left a system of regional service monopolies, sometimes called Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), and a separate longdistance market from which the ILECs were excluded. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 withdrew approval of the ILECs' monopolies, “fundamentally restructur[ing] local telephone markets” and “subject[ing] [ILECs] to a host of duties intended to facilitate market entry.” AT & T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 371, 119 S.Ct. 721, 142 L.Ed.2d 835. It also authorized them to enter the long-distance market. “Central to the [new] scheme [was each ILEC's] obligation ... to share its network with” competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 402, 124 S.Ct. 872, 157 L.Ed.2d 823. Respondents (hereinafter plaintiffs) represent a class of subscribers of local telephone and/or high–speed Internet services in this action against petitioner ILECs for claimed violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits “[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or 1. Stating a § 1 claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made. An allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice. Pp. 1963 – 1970. (a) Because § 1 prohibits “only restraints effected by a contract, combination, or conspiracy,” Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 775, 104 S.Ct. 2731, 81 L.Ed.2d 628, “[t]he crucial question” is whether the challenged anticompetitive conduct “stem[s] from independent decision or from an agreement,” Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U.S. 537, 540, 74 S.Ct. 257, 98 L.Ed. 273. While a showing of parallel “business behavior is admissible circumstantial evidence from which” agreement may be inferred, it falls short of “conclusively establish[ing] agreement or ... itself constitut[ing] a Sherman Act offense.” Id., at 540– 541, 74 S.Ct. 257. The inadequacy of showing parallel conduct or interdependence, without more, **1959 mirrors the behavior's ambiguity: consistent with conspiracy, but just as much in line with a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market. Thus, this Court has hedged against false inferences from identical behavior at a © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... number of points in the trial sequence, e.g., at the summary judgment stage, see Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538. Pp. 1963 – 1964. (b) This case presents the antecedent question of what a plaintiff must plead in order to state a § 1 claim. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80. While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, ibid., 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 a cause of action's elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are true. Applying these general standards to a § 1 claim, stating a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter to suggest an agreement. Asking for plausible grounds does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement. The need at the pleading stage for allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with) agreement reflects Rule 8(a)(2)'s threshold requirement that the “plain statement” possess enough heft to “sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A parallel *546 conduct allegation gets the § 1 complaint close to stating a claim, but without further factual enhancement it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility. The requirement of allegations suggesting an agreement serves the practical purpose of preventing a plaintiff with “ ‘a largely groundless claim’ ” from “ ‘tak[ing] up the time of a number of other people, with the right to do so representing an in terrorem increment of the settlement value.’ ” Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577. It is one thing to be cautious before dismissing an antitrust complaint in advance of discovery, but quite another to forget that proceeding to antitrust discovery can be expensive. That potential expense is obvious here, where plaintiffs represent a putative class of at least 90 percent of subscribers to local telephone or high-speed Internet service in an action against America's largest telecommunications firms for unspecified instances of antitrust violations that allegedly occurred over a 7–year period. It is no answer to say that a claim just shy of plausible entitlement can be weeded out early in the discovery process, given the common lament that the success of judicial supervision in checking discovery abuse has been modest. Plaintiffs' main argument against the plausibility standard at the pleading stage is its ostensible conflict with a literal reading of Conley's statement construing Rule 8: “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” 355 U.S., at 45–46, 78 S.Ct. 99. The “no set of facts” language has been questioned, criticized, and explained away long enough by courts and commentators, **1960 and is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard: once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint. Conley described the breadth of opportunity to prove what an adequate complaint claims, not the minimum standard of adequate pleading to govern a complaint's survival. Pp. 1964 – 1970. 2. Under the plausibility standard, plaintiffs' claim of conspiracy in restraint of trade comes up short. First, the complaint leaves no doubt that plaintiffs rest their § 1 claim on descriptions of parallel conduct, not on any independent allegation of actual agreement among the ILECs. The nub of the complaint is the ILECs' parallel behavior, and its sufficiency turns on the suggestions raised by this conduct when viewed in light of common economic experience. Nothing in the complaint invests either the action or inaction alleged with a plausible conspiracy suggestion. As to the ILECs' supposed agreement to disobey the 1996 Act and thwart the CLECs' attempts to compete, the District Court correctly found that nothing in the complaint intimates that resisting the upstarts was anything more than the natural, unilateral reaction of each *547 ILEC intent on preserving its regional dominance. The complaint's general collusion premise fails to answer the point that there was no need for joint encouragement to resist the 1996 Act, since each ILEC had reason to try to avoid dealing with CLECs and would have tried to keep them out, regardless of the other ILECs' actions. Plaintiffs' second conspiracy theory rests on the competitive reticence among the ILECs themselves in the wake of the 1996 Act to enter into their competitors' territories, leaving the relevant market highly compartmentalized geographically, with minimal competition. This parallel conduct did not suggest conspiracy, not if history teaches anything. Monopoly © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... was the norm in telecommunications, not the exception. Because the ILECs were born in that world, doubtless liked it, and surely knew the adage about him who lives by the sword, a natural explanation for the noncompetition is that the former Government-sanctioned monopolists were sitting tight, expecting their neighbors to do the same. Antitrust conspiracy was not suggested by the facts adduced under either theory of the complaint, which thus fails to state a valid § 1 claim. This analysis does not run counter to Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1, which held that “a complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit [need] not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.” Here, the Court is not requiring heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Because the plaintiffs here have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed. Pp. 1970 – 1974. 425 F.3d 99, reversed and remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined, except as to Part IV, post, p. 1974. Attorneys and Law Firms Stephen M. Shapiro, Kenneth S. Geller, Richard J. Favretto, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, Washington, D.C., Laura J. Coleman, J. Henry Walker, Marc W.F. Galonsky, Ashley Watson, Atlanta, Georgia, for BellSouth Corporation. Timothy Beyer, Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C., Denver, Colorado, **1961 Cynthia P. Delaney, Denver, Colorado, Counsel for Qwest Communications International Inc. Michael K. Kellogg, Mark C. Hansen, Aaron M. Panner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., Javier Aguilar, William M. Schur, San Antonio, Texas, for AT&T Inc. (formerly SBC Communications Inc.). Richard G. Taranto, Farr & Taranto, Washington, D.C., Paul J. Larkin, Jr., David E. Wheeler, Robert J. Zastrow, Arlington, Virginia, Dan K. Webb, Charles B. Molster III, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Verizon Communications Inc. (successor-in-interest to Bell Atlantic Corporation). Marc A. Topaz, Joseph H. Meltzer, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Radnor, PA, J. Douglas Richards, Michael M. Buchman, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents. Opinion Justice SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court. *548 Liability under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, requires a “contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.” The question in this putative class action is whether a § 1 complaint can survive a motion to dismiss when it alleges that major telecommunications providers engaged in certain parallel conduct unfavorable to *549 competition, absent some factual context suggesting agreement, as distinct from identical, independent action. We hold that such a complaint should be dismissed. I The upshot of the 1984 divestiture of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company's (AT & T) local telephone business was a system of regional service monopolies (variously called “Regional Bell Operating Companies,” “Baby Bells,” or “Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers” (ILECs)), and a separate, competitive market for long-distance service from which the ILECs were excluded. More than a decade later, Congress withdrew approval of the ILECs' monopolies by enacting the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), 110 Stat. 56, which “fundamentally restructure[d] local telephone markets” and “subject[ed] [ILECs] to a host of duties intended to facilitate market entry.” AT & T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 371, 119 S.Ct. 721, 142 L.Ed.2d 835 (1999). In recompense, the 1996 Act set conditions for authorizing ILECs to enter the long-distance market. See 47 U.S.C. § 271. “Central to the [new] scheme [was each ILEC's] obligation ... to share its network with competitors,” Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 402, 124 S.Ct. 872, 157 L.Ed.2d 823 (2004), which came to be known as “competitive local © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... exchange carriers” (CLECs), Pet. for Cert. 6, n. 1. A CLEC could make use of an ILEC's network in any of three ways: by (1) “purchas[ing] local telephone services at wholesale rates for resale to end users,” (2) “leas[ing] elements of the [ILEC's] network ‘on an unbundled basis,’ ” or (3) “interconnect[ing] its own facilities with the [ILEC's] network.” Iowa Utilities Bd., supra, at 371, 119 S.Ct. 721 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)). Owing to the “considerable expense and effort” required to make unbundled network elements available to rivals at wholesale prices, Trinko, supra, at 410, 124 S.Ct. 872, the ILECs vigorously litigated the scope of the sharing obligation imposed by the 1996 Act, with the result that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) three times *550 revised **1962 its regulations to narrow the range of network elements to be shared with the CLECs. See Covad Communications Co. v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528, 533–534 (C.A.D.C.2006) (summarizing the 10–year– long regulatory struggle between the ILECs and CLECs). Respondents William Twombly and Lawrence Marcus (hereinafter plaintiffs) represent a putative class consisting of all “subscribers of local telephone and/or high speed internet services ... from February 8, 1996 to present.” Amended Complaint in No. 02 CIV. 10220(GEL) (SDNY) ¶ 53, App. 28 (hereinafter Complaint). In this action against petitioners, a group of ILECs, 1 plaintiffs seek treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for claimed violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1, which prohibits “[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” The complaint alleges that the ILECs conspired to restrain trade in two ways, each supposedly inflating charges for local telephone and high-speed Internet services. Plaintiffs say, first, that the ILECs “engaged in parallel conduct” in their respective service areas to inhibit the growth of upstart CLECs. Complaint ¶ 47, App. 23–26. Their actions allegedly included making unfair agreements with the CLECs for access to ILEC networks, providing inferior connections to the networks, overcharging, and billing in ways designed to sabotage the CLECs' relations with their own customers. Ibid. According to the complaint, the ILECs' *551 “compelling common motivatio[n]” to thwart the CLECs' competitive efforts naturally led them to form a conspiracy; “[h]ad any one [ILEC] not sought to prevent CLECs ... from competing effectively ..., the resulting greater competitive inroads into that [ILEC's] territory would have revealed the degree to which competitive entry by CLECs would have been successful in the other territories in the absence of such conduct.” Id., ¶ 50, App. 26–27. Second, the complaint charges agreements by the ILECs to refrain from competing against one another. These are to be inferred from the ILECs' common failure “meaningfully [to] pursu[e]” “attractive business opportunit[ies]” in contiguous markets where they possessed “substantial competitive advantages,” id., ¶¶ 40–41, App. 21–22, and from a statement of Richard Notebaert, chief executive officer (CEO) of the ILEC Qwest, that competing in the territory of another ILEC “ ‘might be a good way to turn a quick dollar but that doesn't make it right,’ ” id., ¶ 42, App. 22. The complaint couches its ultimate allegations this way: “In the absence of any meaningful competition between the [ILECs] in one another's markets, and in light of the parallel course of conduct that each engaged in to prevent competition from CLECs within their respective local telephone and/or high speed internet services markets and the other facts and market circumstances alleged above, Plaintiffs allege upon information **1963 and belief that [the ILECs] have entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy to prevent competitive entry in their respective local telephone and/or high speed internet services markets and have agreed not to compete with one another and otherwise allocated customers and markets to one another.” Id., ¶ 51, App. 27. 2 *552 The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The District Court acknowledged that “plaintiffs may allege a conspiracy by citing instances of parallel business behavior that suggest an agreement,” but emphasized that “while ‘[c]ircumstantial evidence of consciously parallel behavior may have made heavy inroads into the traditional judicial attitude toward conspiracy[, ...] “conscious parallelism” has not yet read conspiracy out of the Sherman Act entirely.’ ” 313 F.Supp.2d 174, 179 (2003) (quoting Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U.S. 537, 541, 74 S.Ct. 257, 98 L.Ed. 273 (1954); alterations in original). Thus, the District Court understood that allegations of parallel business conduct, taken alone, do not state a claim under © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. § 7 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... 1; plaintiffs must allege additional facts that “ten[d] to exclude independent self-interested conduct as an explanation for crucial question” is whether the challenged anticompetitive conduct “stem[s] from independent decision or from an defendants' parallel behavior.” 313 F.Supp.2d, at 179. The District Court found plaintiffs' allegations of parallel ILEC actions to discourage competition inadequate because “the behavior of each ILEC in resisting the incursion of CLECs is fully explained by the ILEC's own interests in defending its agreement, tacit or express,” Theatre Enterprises, 346 U.S., at 540, 74 S.Ct. 257. While a showing of parallel “business behavior is admissible circumstantial evidence from which the fact finder may infer agreement,” it falls short of “conclusively establish[ing] agreement or ... itself individual territory.” Id., at 183. As to the ILECs' supposed agreement against competing with each other, the District Court found that the complaint does not “alleg[e] facts ... suggesting that refraining from competing in other territories as CLECs was contrary to [the ILECs'] apparent economic interests, and consequently [does] not rais[e] an inference that constitut[ing] a Sherman Act offense.” Id., at 540–541, 74 S.Ct. 257. Even “conscious parallelism,” a common reaction of “firms in a concentrated market [that] recogniz[e] their shared economic interests and their interdependence with respect to price and output decisions” *554 is “not in itself [the ILECs'] actions were the result of a conspiracy.” at 188. Id., *553 The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the District Court tested the complaint by the wrong standard. It held that “plus factors are not required to be pleaded to permit an antitrust claim based on parallel conduct to survive dismissal.” 425 F.3d 99, 114 (2005) (emphasis in original). Although the Court of Appeals took the view that plaintiffs must plead facts that “include conspiracy among the realm of ‘plausible’ possibilities in order to survive a motion to dismiss,” it then said that “to rule that allegations of parallel anticompetitive conduct fail to support a plausible conspiracy claim, a court would have to conclude that there is no set of facts that would permit a plaintiff to demonstrate that the particular parallelism asserted was the product of collusion rather than coincidence.” Ibid. We granted certiorari to address the proper standard for pleading an antitrust conspiracy through allegations of parallel conduct, 548 U.S. 903, 126 S.Ct. 2965, 165 L.Ed.2d 949 (2006), and now reverse. unlawful.” Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227, 113 S.Ct. 2578, 125 L.Ed.2d 168 (1993); see 6 P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1433a, p. 236 (2d ed.2003) (hereinafter Areeda & Hovenkamp) (“The courts are nearly unanimous in saying that mere interdependent parallelism does not establish the contract, combination, or conspiracy required by Sherman Act § 1”); Turner, The Definition of Agreement Under the Sherman Act: Conscious Parallelism and Refusals to Deal, 75 Harv. L.Rev. 655, 672 (1962) (“[M]ere interdependence of basic price decisions is not conspiracy”). [4] [5] [6] The inadequacy of showing parallel conduct or interdependence, without more, mirrors the ambiguity of the behavior: consistent with conspiracy, but just as much in line with a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market. See, e.g., AEI–Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Epstein, Motions to Dismiss Antitrust Cases: Separating Fact from Fantasy, Related Publication 06– 08, pp. 3–4 (2006) (discussing problem of “false positives” **1964 II in § 1 suits). Accordingly, we have previously hedged against false inferences from identical behavior at a number of points in the trial sequence. An antitrust conspiracy plaintiff with evidence showing nothing beyond parallel conduct is not entitled to a directed verdict, see Theatre A Enterprises, supra; proof of a § 1 conspiracy must include evidence tending to exclude the possibility of independent action, see Monsanto Co. v. Spray–Rite Service Corp., [1] [2] [3] Because § 1 of the Sherman Act “does not 465 U.S. 752, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984); and prohibit [all] unreasonable restraints of trade ... but only restraints effected by a contract, combination, or conspiracy,” at the summary judgment stage a § 1 plaintiff's offer of conspiracy evidence must tend to rule out the possibility that Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 775, 104 S.Ct. 2731, 81 L.Ed.2d 628 (1984), “[t]he the defendants were acting independently, see Matsushita © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). grounds to infer an agreement does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement. 4 And, of course, a wellpleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy B judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and “that [7] [8] [9] This case presents the antecedent question a recovery is very remote and unlikely.” Ibid. In identifying of what a plaintiff must plead in order to state a claim facts that are suggestive enough to render a § 1 conspiracy under § 1 of the *555 Sherman Act. Federal Rule of Civil plausible, we have the benefit **1966 of the prior rulings Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement and considered views of leading commentators, already of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” quoted, that lawful parallel conduct fails to bespeak unlawful in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... agreement. It makes sense to say, therefore, that an allegation claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” Conley of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 not suffice. Without *557 more, parallel conduct does not (1957). While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion suggest conspiracy, and a conclusory allegation of agreement to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, ibid.; at some unidentified point does not supply facts adequate to Sanjuan v. American Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., show illegality. Hence, when allegations of parallel conduct 40 F.3d 247, 251 (C.A.7 1994), a plaintiff's obligation to are set out in order to make a § 1 claim, they must be provide the **1965 “grounds” of his “entitle[ment] to relief” placed in a context that raises a suggestion of a preceding requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic agreement, not merely parallel conduct that could just as well recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do, be independent action. see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (on a motion to dismiss, courts “are The need at the pleading stage for allegations plausibly not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as suggesting (not merely consistent with) agreement reflects a factual allegation”). Factual allegations must be enough the threshold requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) that the “plain to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, see 5 statement” possess enough heft to “sho[w] that the pleader C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § is entitled to relief.” A statement of parallel conduct, 1216, pp. 235–236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) even conduct consciously undertaken, needs some setting (“[T]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... suggesting the agreement necessary to make out a § 1 a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a claim; without that further circumstance pointing toward a legally cognizable right of action”), 3 on the assumption that meeting of the minds, an account of a defendant's commercial all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful efforts stays in neutral territory. An allegation of parallel conduct is thus much like a naked assertion of conspiracy in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. *556 Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual in a § 1 complaint: it gets the complaint close to stating a claim, but without some further factual enhancement it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of “entitle[ment] to relief.” Cf. DM Research, Inc. v. College of Am. Pathologists, 170 F.3d 53, 56 (C.A.1 1999) (“[T]erms allegations”); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 like ‘conspiracy,’ or even ‘agreement,’ are border-line: they S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint might well be sufficient in conjunction with a more specific may proceed even if it appears “that a recovery is very remote allegation—for example, identifying a written agreement or and unlikely”). even a basis for inferring a tacit agreement, ... but a court is [10] [11] [12] [13] In applying these general standardsnot required to accept such terms as a sufficient basis for a to a § 1 claim, we hold that stating such a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made. Asking for plausible complaint”). 5 © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... We alluded to the practical significance of the Rule 8 entitlement requirement in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005), when we explained that something beyond the mere possibility of loss causation must be *558 alleged, lest a plaintiff with “ ‘a largely groundless claim’ ” be allowed to “ ‘take up the time of a number of other people, with the right to do so representing an in terrorem increment of the settlement value.’ ” Id., at 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627 (quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 741, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975)). So, when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief, “ ‘this basic deficiency should ... be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court.’ ” 5 Wright & Miller § 1216, at 233–234 (quoting Daves v. Hawaiian Dredging Co., 114 F.Supp. 643, 645 (D.Hawai 1953)); see also Dura, supra, at 346, 125 S.Ct. 1627; Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 289 F.Supp.2d 986, 995 (N.D.Ill.2003) (Posner, J., sitting by designation) (“[S]ome threshold of plausibility must be crossed at the outset before a patent antitrust case should be permitted to go into its inevitably costly and protracted discovery phase”). Thus, it is one thing to be cautious before dismissing an antitrust complaint in advance of discovery, cf. **1967 Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962), but quite another to forget that proceeding to antitrust discovery can be expensive. As we indicated over 20 years ago in Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 528, n. 17, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983), “a district court must retain the power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially massive factual controversy to proceed.” See also Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (C.A.7 1984) (“[T]he costs of modern federal antitrust litigation and the increasing caseload of the federal courts counsel against sending the parties into discovery when there is no reasonable likelihood that the plaintiffs can construct a claim from the events related in the complaint”); Note, Modeling the Effect of One–Way Fee Shifting on Discovery Abuse in Private Antitrust Litigation, 78 N.Y. & U. L.Rev. 1887, 1898–1899 (2003) (discussing the unusually high cost of discovery in antitrust cases); *559 Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 30, p. 519 (2004) (describing extensive scope of discovery in antitrust cases); Memorandum from Paul V. Niemeyer, Chair, Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, to Hon. Anthony J. Scirica, Chair, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (May 11, 1999), 192 F.R.D. 354, 357 (2000) (reporting that discovery accounts for as much as 90 percent of litigation costs when discovery is actively employed). That potential expense is obvious enough in the present case: plaintiffs represent a putative class of at least 90 percent of all subscribers to local telephone or high-speed Internet service in the continental United States, in an action against America's largest telecommunications firms (with many thousands of employees generating reams and gigabytes of business records) for unspecified (if any) instances of antitrust violations that allegedly occurred over a period of seven years. It is no answer to say that a claim just shy of a plausible entitlement to relief can, if groundless, be weeded out early in the discovery process through “careful case management,” post, at 1975, given the common lament that the success of judicial supervision in checking discovery abuse has been on the modest side. See, e.g., Easterbrook, Discovery as Abuse, 69 B.U.L.Rev. 635, 638 (1989) (“Judges can do little about impositional discovery when parties control the legal claims to be presented and conduct the discovery themselves”). And it is self-evident that the problem of discovery abuse cannot be solved by “careful scrutiny of evidence at the summary judgment stage,” much less “lucid instructions to juries,” post, at 1975; the threat of discovery expense will push cost-conscious defendants to settle even anemic cases before reaching those proceedings. Probably, then, it is only by taking care to require allegations that reach the level suggesting conspiracy that we can hope to avoid the potentially enormous expense of discovery in cases with no “ ‘reasonably founded hope that the [discovery] process will reveal relevant evidence’ ” to support a § 1 claim. *560 Dura, 544 U.S., at 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577, (quoting Blue Chip Stamps, supra, at 741, 95 S.Ct. 1917; alteration in Dura ). 6 **1968 [14] Plaintiffs do not, of course, dispute the requirement of plausibility and the need for something more than merely parallel behavior explained in Theatre Enterprises, Monsanto, and Matsushita, and their main argument against the plausibility standard at the pleading stage is its ostensible *561 conflict with an early statement of ours construing Rule 8. Justice Black's opinion for the Court in Conley v. Gibson spoke not only of the need for © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... fair notice of the grounds for entitlement to relief but of “the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” 355 U.S., at 45–46, 78 S.Ct. 99. This “no set of facts” language can be read in isolation as saying that any statement revealing the theory of the claim will suffice unless its factual impossibility may be shown from the face of the pleadings; and the Court of Appeals appears to have read Conley in some such way when formulating its understanding of the proper pleading standard, frivolous claim of unconstitutional ... action into a substantial one”); McGregor v. Industrial Excess Landfill, Inc., 856 F.2d 39, 42–43 (C.A.6 1988) (quoting O'Brien's analysis); Hazard, From Whom No Secrets Are Hid, 76 Tex. L.Rev. 1665, 1685 (1998) (describing Conley as having “turned Rule 8 on its head”); Marcus, The Revival of Fact Pleading Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 86 Colum. L.Rev. 433, 463–465 (1986) (noting tension between Conley and subsequent understandings of Rule 8). *562 fact in a context that suggests an agreement. 425 F.3d, at 106, 114. It seems fair to say that this approach to pleading would dispense with any showing of a “ ‘reasonably founded hope’ ” that a plaintiff would be able to make a We could go on, but there is no need to pile up further citations to show that Conley's “no set of facts” language has been questioned, criticized, and explained away long enough. To be fair to the Conley Court, the passage should be understood in light of the opinion's preceding summary of the complaint's *563 concrete allegations, which the Court quite reasonably understood as amply stating a claim for relief. But the passage so often quoted fails to mention this understanding on the part of the Court, and after puzzling the profession for 50 years, this famous observation has earned its retirement. The phrase is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard: once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint. See Sanjuan, 40 F.3d, at 251 (once a claim for relief has been stated, a plaintiff “receives the benefit of imagination, so long as the hypotheses are consistent with the complaint”); case, see accord, see 425 F.3d, at 106, 114 (invoking Conley's “no set of facts” language in describing the standard for dismissal). 7 On such a focused and literal reading of Conley's “no set of facts,” a wholly conclusory statement of claim would survive a motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings left open the possibility that a plaintiff might later establish some “set of [undisclosed] facts” to support recovery. So here, the Court of Appeals specifically found the prospect of unearthing direct evidence of conspiracy sufficient to preclude dismissal, even though the complaint **1969 does not set forth a single Dura, 544 U.S., at 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627 (quoting Blue Chip Stamps, 421 U.S., at 741, 95 S.Ct. 1917); Mr. Micawber's optimism would be enough. Seeing this, a good many judges and commentators have balked at taking the literal terms of the Conley passage as a pleading standard. See, e.g., Car Carriers, 745 F.2d, at 1106 (“Conley has never been interpreted literally” and, “[i]n practice, a complaint ... must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory” (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis and omission in original)); Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1155 (C.A.9 1989) (tension between Conley's “no set of facts” language and its acknowledgment that a plaintiff must provide the “grounds” on which his claim rests); O'Brien v. DiGrazia, 544 F.2d 543, 546, n. 3 (C.A.1 1976) (“[W]hen a plaintiff ... supplies facts to support his claim, we do not think that Conley imposes a duty on the courts to conjure up unpleaded facts that might turn a Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S., at 514, 122 S.Ct. 992; National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 256, 114 S.Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994); H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229, 249– 250, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989); Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). Conley, then, described the breadth of opportunity to prove what an adequate complaint claims, not the minimum standard of adequate pleading to govern a complaint's survival. 8 **1970 *564 III [15] When we look for plausibility in this complaint, we agree with the District Court that plaintiffs' claim of conspiracy in restraint of trade comes up short. To begin with, the complaint leaves no doubt that plaintiffs rest their § 1 claim on descriptions of parallel conduct and not © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... on any independent allegation of actual agreement among the ILECs. Supra, at 1962 – 1963. Although in form a few stray statements speak directly of agreement, 9 on fair reading these are merely legal conclusions resting on the prior allegations. Thus, the complaint *565 first takes account of the alleged “absence of any meaningful competition between [the ILECs] in one another's markets,” “the parallel course of conduct that each [ILEC] engaged in to prevent competition from CLECs,” “and the other facts and market circumstances alleged [earlier]”; “in light of” these, the complaint concludes “that [the ILECs] have entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy to prevent competitive entry into their ... markets and have agreed not to compete with one another.” Complaint ¶ 51, App. 27. 10 The nub of the **1971 complaint, then, is the ILECs' parallel behavior, consisting of steps to keep the CLECs out and manifest disinterest in becoming CLECs themselves, and its sufficiency turns on the suggestions raised by this conduct when viewed in light of common economic experience. 11 *566 We think that nothing contained in the complaint invests either the action or inaction alleged with a plausible suggestion of conspiracy. As to the ILECs' supposed agreement to disobey the 1996 Act and thwart the CLECs' attempts to compete, we agree with the District Court that nothing in the complaint intimates that the resistance to the upstarts was anything more than the natural, unilateral reaction of each ILEC intent on keeping its regional dominance. The 1996 Act did more than just subject the ILECs to competition; it obliged them to subsidize their competitors with their own equipment at wholesale rates. The economic incentive to resist was powerful, but resisting competition is routine market conduct, and even if the ILECs flouted the 1996 Act in all the ways the plaintiffs allege, see id., ¶ 47, App. 23–24, there is no reason to infer that the companies had agreed among themselves to do what was only natural anyway; so natural, in fact, that if alleging parallel decisions to resist competition were enough to imply this general premise still fails to answer the point that there was just no need for joint encouragement to resist the 1996 Act; as the District Court said, “each ILEC has reason to want to avoid dealing with CLECs” and “each ILEC would attempt to keep CLECs out, regardless of the actions of the other ILECs.” 313 F.Supp.2d, at 184; cf. Kramer v. Pollock–Krasner Foundation, 890 F.Supp. 250, 256 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (while the plaintiff “may believe the defendants conspired ..., the defendants' allegedly conspiratorial actions *567 could equally have been prompted by lawful, independent goals which do not constitute a conspiracy”). 12 **1972 Plaintiffs' second conspiracy theory rests on the competitive reticence among the ILECs themselves in the wake of the 1996 Act, which was supposedly passed in the “ ‘hop[e] that the large incumbent local monopoly companies ... might attack their neighbors' service areas, as they are the best situated to do so.’ ” Complaint ¶ 38, App. 20 (quoting Consumer Federation of America, Lessons from 1996 Telecommunications Act: Deregulation Before Meaningful Competition Spells Consumer Disaster, p. 12 (Feb. 2000)). Contrary to hope, the ILECs declined “ ‘to enter each other's service territories in any significant way,’ ” Complaint ¶ 38, App. 20, and the local telephone and high– speed Internet market remains highly compartmentalized geographically, with minimal competition. Based on this state of affairs, and perceiving the ILECs to be blessed with “especially attractive business opportunities” in surrounding markets dominated by other ILECs, the plaintiffs assert that the ILECs' parallel conduct was “strongly suggestive of conspiracy.” Id., ¶ 40, App. 21. an antitrust conspiracy, pleading a § 1 violation against almost any group of competing businesses would be a sure thing. But it was not suggestive of conspiracy, not if history teaches anything. In a traditionally unregulated industry with low barriers to entry, sparse competition among large firms dominating separate geographical segments of the market could very well signify illegal agreement, but here we have an obvious alternative explanation. In the decade *568 preceding the 1996 Act and well before that, monopoly was the norm in telecommunications, not the exception. See The complaint makes its closest pass at a predicate for conspiracy with the claim that collusion was necessary because success by even one CLEC in an ILEC's territory “would have revealed the degree to which competitive entry by CLECs would have been successful in the other territories.” Id., ¶ 50, App. 26–27. But, its logic aside, Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467, 477– 478, 122 S.Ct. 1646, 152 L.Ed.2d 701 (2002) (describing telephone service providers as traditional public monopolies). The ILECs were born in that world, doubtless liked the world the way it was, and surely knew the adage about him who lives by the sword. Hence, a natural explanation for the noncompetition alleged is that the former Government- © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... sanctioned monopolists were sitting tight, expecting their neighbors to do the same thing. standard for Title VII cases was contrary to the Federal Rules' structure of liberal pleading requirements.” 313 F.Supp.2d, at 181 (citation and footnote omitted). Even [16] [17] [18] In fact, the complaint itself gives reasons though Swierkiewicz's pleadings “detailed the events leading to believe that the ILECs would see their best interests to his termination, provided relevant dates, and included in keeping to their old turf. Although the complaint says the ages and nationalities of at least some of the relevant generally that the ILECs passed up “especially attractive persons involved with his termination,” the Court of Appeals business opportunit[ies]” by declining to compete as CLECs dismissed his complaint for failing to allege certain additional against other ILECs, Complaint ¶ 40, App. 21, it does facts that Swierkiewicz would need at the trial stage to support not allege that competition as CLECs was potentially any his claim in the absence of direct evidence of discrimination. more lucrative than other opportunities being pursued by the Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S., at 514, 122 S.Ct. 992. We reversed ILECs during the same period, 13 and **1973 the complaint on the ground that the Court of Appeals had impermissibly is replete with indications that any CLEC faced nearly applied what amounted to a heightened pleading requirement insurmountable barriers to profitability owing to the ILECs' by insisting that Swierkiewicz allege “specific facts” beyond flagrant resistance to the network sharing requirements of those necessary to state his **1974 claim and the grounds the 1996 Act, id., ¶ 47, App. *569 23–26. Not only that, showing entitlement to relief. Id., at 508, 122 S.Ct. 992. but even without a monopolistic tradition and the peculiar difficulty of mandating shared networks, “[f]irms do not Here, in contrast, we do not require heightened fact pleading expand without limit and none of them enters every market of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that an outside observer might regard as profitable, or even that is plausible on its face. Because the plaintiffs here have a small portion of such markets.” Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶ not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to 307d, at 155 (Supp.2006) (commenting on the case at bar). plausible, their complaint must be dismissed. The upshot is that Congress may have expected some ILECs to become CLECs in the legacy territories of other ILECs, but the disappointment does not make conspiracy plausible. We agree with the District Court's assessment that antitrust *** conspiracy was not suggested by the facts adduced under The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit either theory of the complaint, which thus fails to state a valid is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings § 1 claim. 14 consistent with this opinion. Plaintiffs say that our analysis runs counter to Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S., at 508, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1, which held that “a complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit [need] not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792[, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668] (1973).” They argue that just as the prima facie case is a “flexible evidentiary standard” that “should not be transposed into a rigid pleading standard for discrimination cases,” Swierkiewicz, supra, at 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, “transpos[ing] ‘plus factor’ summary judgment analysis woodenly into a rigid Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard ... would be unwise,” Brief for Respondents 39. As the District Court *570 correctly understood, however, “Swierkiewicz did not change the law of pleading, but simply re-emphasized ... that the It is so ordered. Justice STEVENS, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins except as to Part IV, dissenting. In the first paragraph of its 23–page opinion the Court states that the question to be decided is whether allegations that “major telecommunications providers engaged in certain *571 parallel conduct unfavorable to competition” suffice to state a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. Ante, at 1961. The answer to that question has been settled for more than 50 years. If that were indeed the issue, a summary reversal citing Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U.S. 537, 74 S.Ct. 257, 98 L.Ed. 273 (1954), would adequately resolve this case. As Theatre Enterprises held, parallel conduct is circumstantial evidence admissible Second Circuit's use of a heightened pleading © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 13 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... on the issue of conspiracy, but it is not itself illegal. 540–542, 74 S.Ct. 257. Id., at Thus, this is a case in which there is no dispute about the substantive law. If the defendants acted independently, their conduct was perfectly lawful. If, however, that conduct is the product of a horizontal agreement among potential competitors, it was unlawful. The plaintiffs have alleged such an agreement and, because the complaint was dismissed in advance of answer, the allegation has not even been denied. Why, then, does the case not proceed? Does a judicial opinion that the charge is not “plausible” provide a legally acceptable reason for dismissing the complaint? I think not. Respondents' amended complaint describes a variety of circumstantial evidence and makes the straightforward allegation that petitioners “entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy to prevent competitive entry in their respective local telephone and/or high speed internet services markets and have agreed not to compete with one another and otherwise allocated customers and markets to one another.” Amended Complaint in No. 02 CIV. 10220(GEL) (SDNY) ¶ 51, App. 27 (hereinafter Complaint). The complaint explains that, contrary to Congress' expectation when it enacted the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and consistent with their own economic self-interests, petitioner Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) have assiduously avoided infringing upon each other's markets and have *572 refused to permit nonincumbent competitors to access their networks. The complaint quotes Richard Notebaert, the former chief executive officer of one such ILEC, as saying that competing in a neighboring ILEC's territory “ ‘might be a good way to turn a quick dollar but that doesn't make it right.’ ” Id., ¶ 42, App. 22. Moreover, respondents allege that petitioners “communicate amongst themselves” through numerous industry associations. Id., ¶ 46, App. 23. In sum, respondents allege that petitioners entered into an agreement that has long been recognized as a classic per se **1975 violation of the Sherman Act. See Report of the Attorney General's National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws 26 (1955). Under rules of procedure that have been well settled since well before our decision in Theatre Enterprises, a judge ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint “must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); see Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., 318 U.S. 125, 127, 63 S.Ct. 494, 87 L.Ed. 656 (1943). But instead of requiring knowledgeable executives such as Notebaert to respond to these allegations by way of sworn depositions or other limited discovery— and indeed without so much as requiring petitioners to file an answer denying that they entered into any agreement —the majority permits immediate dismissal based on the assurances of company lawyers that nothing untoward was afoot. The Court embraces the argument of those lawyers that “there is no reason to infer that the companies had agreed among themselves to do what was only natural anyway,” ante, at 1971; that “there was just no need for joint encouragement to resist the 1996 Act,” ibid.; and that the “natural explanation for the noncompetition alleged is that the former Government-sanctioned monopolists were sitting tight, expecting their neighbors to do the same thing,” ante, at 1972. The Court and petitioners' legal team are no doubt correct that the parallel conduct alleged is consistent with the absence *573 of any contract, combination, or conspiracy. But that conduct is also entirely consistent with the presence of the illegal agreement alleged in the complaint. And the charge that petitioners “agreed not to compete with one another” is not just one of “a few stray statements,” ante, at 1970; it is an allegation describing unlawful conduct. As such, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, our longstanding precedent, and sound practice mandate that the District Court at least require some sort of response from petitioners before dismissing the case. Two practical concerns presumably explain the Court's dramatic departure from settled procedural law. Private antitrust litigation can be enormously expensive, and there is a risk that jurors may mistakenly conclude that evidence of parallel conduct has proved that the parties acted pursuant to an agreement when they in fact merely made similar independent decisions. Those concerns merit careful case management, including strict control of discovery, careful scrutiny of evidence at the summary judgment stage, and lucid instructions to juries; they do not, however, justify the dismissal of an adequately pleaded complaint without even requiring the defendants to file answers denying a charge that they in fact engaged in collective decisionmaking. More importantly, they do not justify an interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) that seems to be driven © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 14 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... by the majority's appraisal of the plausibility of the ultimate factual allegation rather than its legal sufficiency. I Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The Rule did not come about by happenstance, and its language is not inadvertent. The English experience with Byzantine special pleading rules —illustrated by the hypertechnical Hilary rules of *574 1834 1 —made **1976 obvious the appeal of a pleading standard that was easy for the common litigant to understand and sufficed to put the defendant on notice as to the nature of the claim against him and the relief sought. Stateside, David Dudley Field developed the highly influential New York Code of 1848, which required “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.” An Act to Simplify and Abridge the Practice, Pleadings and Proceedings of the Courts of this State, ch. 379, § 120(2), 1848 N.Y. Laws pp. 497, 521. Substantially similar language appeared in the Federal Equity Rules adopted in 1912. See Fed. Equity Rule 25 (requiring “a short and simple statement of the ultimate facts upon which the plaintiff asks relief, omitting any mere statement of evidence”). A difficulty arose, however, in that the Field Code and its progeny required a plaintiff to plead “facts” rather than “conclusions,” a distinction that proved far easier to say than to apply. As commentators have noted, “it is virtually impossible logically to distinguish among ‘ultimate facts,’ ‘evidence,’ and ‘conclusions.’ Essentially any allegation in a pleading must be an assertion that certain occurrences took place. The pleading spectrum, passing from evidence through ultimate facts to conclusions, is largely a continuum varying only in the degree of particularity with which the occurrences are described.” Weinstein & Distler, Comments on Procedural Reform: Drafting Pleading Rules, 57 Colum. L.Rev. 518, 520–521 (1957). See also Cook, Statements of Fact in Pleading Under the Codes, 21 Colum. L.Rev. 416, 417 (1921) (hereinafter Cook) (“[T]here is no logical distinction between statements which are grouped by the courts under the phrases ‘statements of *575 fact’ and ‘conclusions of law’ ”). Rule 8 was directly responsive to this difficulty. Its drafters intentionally avoided any reference to “facts” or “evidence” or “conclusions.” See 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, p. 207 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) (“The substitution of ‘claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ for the code formulation of the ‘facts' constituting a ‘cause of action’ was intended to avoid the distinctions drawn under the codes among ‘evidentiary facts,’ ‘ultimate facts,’ and ‘conclusions' ...”). Under the relaxed pleading standards of the Federal Rules, the idea was not to keep litigants out of court but rather to keep them in. The merits of a claim would be sorted out during a flexible pretrial process and, as appropriate, through the crucible of trial. See Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S., at 514, 122 S.Ct. 992 (“The liberal notice pleading of Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim”). Charles E. Clark, the “principal draftsman” of the Federal Rules, 2 put it thus: “Experience has shown ... that we cannot expect the proof of the case to be made through the pleadings, and that such proof is really not their function. We can expect a general statement distinguishing the case from all others, so that the manner and form of trial and remedy expected are clear, and so that a permanent judgment will result.” **1977 The New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: The Last Phase —Underlying Philosophy Embodied in Some of the Basic Provisions of the New Procedure, 23 A.B.A.J. 976, 977 (1937) (hereinafter Clark, New Federal Rules). The pleading paradigm under the new Federal Rules was well illustrated by the inclusion in the appendix of Form 9, *576 a complaint for negligence. As relevant, the Form 9 complaint states only: “On June 1, 1936, in a public highway called Boylston Street in Boston, Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff who was then crossing said highway.” Form 9, Complaint for Negligence, Forms App., Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., 28 U.S.C.App., p. 829 (hereinafter Form 9). The complaint then describes the plaintiff's injuries and demands judgment. The asserted ground for relief —namely, the defendant's negligent driving—would have been called a “ ‘conclusion of law’ ” under the code pleading of old. See, e.g., Cook 419. But that bare allegation suffices under a system that “restrict[s] the pleadings to the task of general notice-giving and invest[s] © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 15 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... the deposition-discovery process with a vital role in the preparation for trial.” 3 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947); see also Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S., at 513, n. 4, 122 S.Ct. 992 (citing Form 9 as an example of “ ‘the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate’ ”); Thomson v. Washington, 362 F.3d 969, 970 (C.A.7 2004) (Posner, J.) (“The federal rules replaced fact pleading with notice pleading”). separate writings. 4 In not one of *578 those 16 opinions was the language “questioned,” “criticized,” or “explained away.” Indeed, today's opinion is the first by any Member of this Court to express any doubt as to the adequacy of the Conley formulation. Taking their cues from the federal courts, 26 States and the District of Columbia utilize as their standard for dismissal of a complaint the very language the majority repudiates: whether it appears “beyond doubt” that “no set of facts” in support of the claim would entitle the plaintiff to relief. 5 II It is in the context of this history that Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), must be understood. The Conley plaintiffs were black railroad workers who alleged that their union local had refused to protect them against discriminatory discharges, in violation of the National Railway Labor Act. The union sought to dismiss the complaint on the ground that its general allegations of discriminatory treatment by the defendants lacked sufficient specificity. Writing *577 for a unanimous Court, Justice Black rejected the union's claim as foreclosed by the language of Rule 8. Id., at 47–48, 78 S.Ct. 99. In the course of doing so, he articulated the formulation the Court rejects today: “In appraising the sufficiency of the complaint we follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” 78 S.Ct. 99. years,” ante, at 1969, 355 U.S. 41, 2 L.Ed.2d 80, has been cited as authority in a dozen opinions of this Court and four Id., at 45–46, Consistent with the design of the Federal Rules, Conley's “no set of facts” formulation permits outright dismissal only when proceeding to discovery or beyond would be futile. Once it is clear that a plaintiff has stated a claim that, if true, would entitle him to relief, matters of proof are appropriately relegated to other stages of the trial process. Today, however, in its explanation of a decision to dismiss a complaint that it regards as a fishing expedition, the Court scraps Conley's “no set of facts” language. Concluding that the phrase has been “questioned, criticized, and explained away long enough,” ante, at 1969, the Court dismisses it as careless composition. **1978 If Conley's “no set of facts” language is to be interred, let it not be without a eulogy. That exact language, which the majority says has “puzzl[ed] the profession for 50 **1979 *579 Petitioners have not requested that the Conley formulation be retired, nor have any of the six amici who filed briefs in support of petitioners. I would not rewrite the Nation's civil procedure textbooks and call into doubt the pleading rules of most of its States without far more informed deliberation as to the costs of doing so. Congress has established a process—a rulemaking process—for revisions of that order. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072–2074 (2000 ed. and Supp. IV). Today's majority calls Conley's “ ‘no set of facts' ” language “an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard: once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be *580 supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Ante, at 1969. This is not and cannot be what the Conley Court meant. First, as I have explained, and as the Conley Court well knew, the pleading standard the Federal Rules meant to codify does not require, or even invite, the pleading of facts. 6 The “pleading standard” label the majority gives to what it reads into the Conley opinion—a statement of the permissible factual support for an adequately pleaded complaint—would not, therefore, have impressed the Conley Court itself. Rather, that Court would have understood the majority's remodeling of its language to express an evidentiary standard, which the Conley Court had neither need nor want to explicate. Second, it is pellucidly clear that the Conley Court was interested in what a complaint must contain, not what it may contain. In fact, the Court said without qualification that it was “appraising the sufficiency of **1980 the complaint.” 355 U.S., at 45, 78 S.Ct. 99 (emphasis added). It was, to paraphrase today's majority, describing “the minimum standard of adequate pleading to govern a complaint's survival,” ante, at 1969. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 16 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... We can be triply sure as to Conley's meaning by examining the three Court of Appeals cases the Conley Court cited as support for the “accepted rule” that “a complaint should not *581 be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” 355 U.S., at 45–46, 78 S.Ct. 99. In the first case, Leimer v. State Mut. Life Assurance Co. of Worcester, Mass., 108 F.2d 302 (C.A.8 1940), the plaintiff alleged that she was the beneficiary of a life insurance plan and that the insurance company was wrongfully withholding proceeds from her. In reversing the District Court's grant of the defendant's motion to dismiss, the Eighth Circuit noted that court's own longstanding rule that, to warrant dismissal, “ ‘it should appear from the allegations that a cause of action does not exist, rather than that a cause of action has been defectively stated.’ ” Id., at 305 (quoting Winget v. Rockwood, 69 F.2d 326, 329 (C.A.8 1934)). The Leimer court viewed the Federal Rules—specifically Rules 8(a)(2), 12(b)(6), 12(e) (motion for a more definite statement), and 56 (motion for summary judgment)—as reinforcing the notion that “there is no justification for dismissing a complaint for insufficiency of statement, except where it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim.” 108 F.2d, at 306. The court refuted in the strongest terms any suggestion that the unlikelihood of recovery should determine the fate of a complaint: “No matter how improbable it may be that she can prove her claim, she is entitled to an opportunity to make the attempt, and is not required to accept as final a determination of her rights based upon inferences drawn in favor of the defendant from her amended complaint.” Ibid. The Third Circuit relied on Leimer's admonition in Continental Collieries, Inc. v. Shober, 130 F.2d 631 (1942), which the Conley Court also cited in support of its “no set of facts” formulation. In a diversity action the plaintiff alleged breach of contract, but the District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the contract appeared to be unenforceable under state law. The Court of Appeals reversed, *582 concluding that there were facts in dispute that went to the enforceability of the contract, and that the rule at the pleading stage was as in Leimer: “No matter how likely it may seem that the pleader will be unable to prove his case, he is entitled, upon averring a claim, to an opportunity to try to prove it.” 130 F.3d, at 635. The third case the Conley Court cited approvingly was written by Judge Clark himself. In Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (C.A.2 1944), the pro se plaintiff, an importer of “tonics,” charged the customs inspector with auctioning off the plaintiff's former merchandise for less than was bid for it—and indeed for an amount equal to the plaintiff's own bid—and complained that two cases of tonics went missing three weeks before the sale. The inference, hinted at by the averments but never stated in so many words, was that the defendant fraudulently denied the plaintiff his rightful claim to the tonics, which, if true, would have violated federal law. Writing six years after the adoption of the Federal Rules he held the lead rein in drafting, Judge Clark said that the defendant “could have disclosed the facts from his point of view, in advance of a trial if he **1981 chose, by asking for a pretrial hearing or by moving for a summary judgment with supporting affidavits. But, as it stands, we do not see how the plaintiff may properly be deprived of his day in court to show what he obviously so firmly believes and what for present purposes defendant must be taken as admitting.” Id., at 775. As any civil procedure student knows, Judge Clark's opinion disquieted the defense bar and gave rise to a movement to revise Rule 8 to require a plaintiff to plead a “ ‘cause of action.’ ” See 5 Wright & Miller § 1201, at 86–87. The movement failed, see ibid.; Dioguardi was explicitly approved in Conley; and “[i]n retrospect the case itself seems to be a *583 routine application of principles that are universally accepted,” 5 Wright & Miller § 1220, at 284–285. In light of Leimer, Continental Collieries, and Dioguardi, Conley's statement that a complaint is not to be dismissed unless “no set of facts” in support thereof would entitle the plaintiff to relief is hardly “puzzling,” ante, at 1969. It reflects a philosophy that, unlike in the days of code pleading, separating the wheat from the chaff is a task assigned to the pretrial and trial process. Conley's language, in short, captures the policy choice embodied in the Federal Rules and binding on the federal courts. We have consistently reaffirmed that basic understanding of the Federal Rules in the half century since Conley. For example, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), we reversed the Court of Appeals' dismissal on the pleadings when the respondents, © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... the Governor and other officials of the State of Ohio, argued that the petitioners' claims were barred by sovereign immunity. In a unanimous opinion by then-Justice Rehnquist, we emphasized: “When a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.” added). Id., at 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683 (emphasis The Rhodes plaintiffs had “alleged generally and in conclusory terms” that the defendants, by calling out the National Guard to suppress the Kent State University student protests, “were guilty of wanton, wilful and negligent conduct.” Krause v. Rhodes, 471 F.2d 430, 433 (C.A.6 1972). We reversed the Court of Appeals on the ground that “[w]hatever *584 the plaintiffs may or may not be able to establish as to the merits of their allegations, their claims, as stated in the complaints, given the favorable reading required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment because they were styled as suits against the defendants in their individual capacities. U.S., at 238, 94 S.Ct. 1683. 416 We again spoke with one voice against efforts to expand pleading requirements beyond their appointed limits in Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993). Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist rebuffed the Fifth Circuit's effort to craft a standard for pleading municipal liability that accounted for “the enormous expense involved today in litigation,” Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 954 F.2d 1054, 1057 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted), by requiring a plaintiff to “state with factual **1982 detail and particularity the basis for the claim which necessarily includes why the defendant-official cannot successfully maintain the defense of immunity,” 507 U.S., at 167, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517, (internal quotation marks omitted). We found this language inconsistent with Rules 8(a)(2) and 9(b) and emphasized that motions to dismiss were not the place to combat discovery abuse: “In the absence of [an amendment to Rule 9(b) ], federal courts and litigants must rely on summary judgment and control of discovery to weed out unmeritorious claims sooner rather than later.” 169, 113 S.Ct. 1160. Id., at 168– Most recently, in Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1, we were faced with a case more similar to the present one than the majority will allow. In discrimination cases, our precedents require a plaintiff at the summary judgment stage to produce either direct evidence of discrimination or, if the claim is based primarily on circumstantial evidence, to meet the shifting evidentiary burdens imposed under the framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See, e.g., *585 Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121, 105 S.Ct. 613, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985). Swierkiewicz alleged that he had been terminated on account of national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Second Circuit dismissed the suit on the pleadings because he had not pleaded a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas standard. We reversed in another unanimous opinion, holding that “under a notice pleading system, it is not appropriate to require a plaintiff to plead facts establishing a prima facie case because the McDonnell Douglas framework does not apply in every employment discrimination case.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S., at 511, 122 S.Ct. 992. We also observed that Rule 8(a)(2) does not contemplate a court's passing on the merits of a litigant's claim at the pleading stage. Rather, the “simplified notice pleading standard” of the Federal Rules “relies on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims.” Id., at 512, 122 S.Ct. 992; see Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., O.T.2001, No. 00–1853, p. 10 (stating that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not “an appropriate device for testing the truth of what is asserted or for determining whether a plaintiff has any evidence to back up what is in the complaint” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 7 As in the discrimination context, we have developed an evidentiary framework for evaluating claims under § 1 of the Sherman Act when those claims rest on entirely © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 18 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... circumstantial evidence of conspiracy. See Matsushita Elec. Industrial *586 Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Under Matsushita, a plaintiff's allegations of an illegal conspiracy may not, at the summary judgment stage, rest solely on the inferences that may be drawn from the parallel conduct of the defendants. In order to survive a Rule 56 motion, a § 1 plaintiff “must present evidence ‘that tends **1983 to exclude the possibility’ that the alleged conspirators acted independently.' ” Id., at 588, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (quoting Monsanto Co. v. Spray–Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 764, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984)). That is, the plaintiff “must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action.” 588, 106 S.Ct. 1348. 475 U.S., at Everything today's majority says would therefore make perfect sense if it were ruling on a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment and the evidence included nothing more than the Court has described. But it should go without saying in the wake of Swierkiewicz that a heightened production burden at the summary judgment stage does not translate into a heightened pleading burden at the complaint stage. The majority rejects the complaint in this case because—in light of the fact that the parallel conduct alleged is consistent with ordinary market behavior—the claimed conspiracy is “conceivable” but not “plausible,” ante, at 1974. I have my doubts about the majority's assessment of the plausibility of this alleged conspiracy. See Part III, infra. But even if the majority's speculation is correct, its “plausibility” standard is irreconcilable with Rule 8 and with our governing precedents. As we made clear in Swierkiewicz and Leatherman, fear of the burdens of litigation does not justify factual conclusions supported only by lawyers' arguments rather than sworn denials or admissible evidence. This case is a poor vehicle for the Court's new pleading rule, for we have observed that “in antitrust cases, where ‘the proof is largely in the hands of the alleged conspirators,’ ... dismissals prior to giving the plaintiff ample *587 opportunity for discovery should be granted very sparingly.” Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 746, 96 S.Ct. 1848, 48 L.Ed.2d 338 (1976) (quoting Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962)); see also Knuth v. Erie–Crawford Dairy Cooperative Assn., 395 F.2d 420, 423 (C.A.3 1968) (“The ‘liberal’ approach to the consideration of antitrust complaints is important because inherent in such an action is the fact that all the details and specific facts relied upon cannot properly be set forth as part of the pleadings”). Moreover, the fact that the Sherman Act authorizes the recovery of treble damages and attorney's fees for successful plaintiffs indicates that Congress intended to encourage, rather than discourage, private enforcement of the law. See Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445, 454, 77 S.Ct. 390, 1 L.Ed.2d 456 (1957) ( “Congress itself has placed the private antitrust litigant in a most favorable position .... In the face of such a policy this Court should not add requirements to burden the private litigant beyond what is specifically set forth by Congress in those laws”). It is therefore more, not less, important in antitrust cases to resist the urge to engage in armchair economics at the pleading stage. The same year we decided Conley, Judge Clark wrote, presciently, “I fear that every age must learn its lesson that special pleading cannot be made to do the service of trial and that live issues between active litigants are not to be disposed of or evaded on the paper pleadings, i.e., the formalistic claims of the parties. Experience has found no quick and easy short cut for trials in cases generally and antitrust cases in particular.” Special Pleading in the “Big Case”? in Procedure—The Handmaid of Justice 147, 148 (C. Wright & H. Reasoner eds.1965) (hereinafter **1984 Clark, Special Pleading in the Big Case) (emphasis added). *588 In this “Big Case,” the Court succumbs to the temptation that previous Courts have steadfastly resisted. 8 While the majority assures us that it is not applying any “ ‘heightened’ ” pleading standard, see ante, at 1973, n. 14, I shall now explain why I have a difficult time understanding its opinion any other way. III The Court does not suggest that an agreement to do what the plaintiffs allege would be permissible under the antitrust laws, see, e.g., Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526–527, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983). Nor does the Court hold that these © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 19 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... plaintiffs have failed to allege an injury entitling them to sue for damages under those laws, see Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl–O–Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489–490, 97 S.Ct. 690, 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977). Rather, the theory on which the Court permits *589 dismissal is that, so far as the Federal Rules are concerned, no agreement has been alleged at all. This is a mind-boggling conclusion. As the Court explains, prior to the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the law prohibited the defendants from competing with each other. The new statute was enacted to replace a monopolistic market with a competitive one. The Act did not merely require the regional monopolists to take affirmative steps to facilitate entry to new competitors, see Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 402, 124 S.Ct. 872, 157 L.Ed.2d 823 (2004); it also permitted the existing firms to compete with each other and to expand their operations into previously forbidden territory. See 47 U.S.C. § 271. Each of the defendants decided not to take the latter step. That was obviously an extremely important business decision, and I am willing to presume that each company acted entirely independently in reaching that decision. I am even willing to entertain the majority's belief that any agreement among the companies was unlikely. But the plaintiffs allege in three places in their complaint, ¶¶ 4, 51, 64, App. 11, 27, 30, that the ILECs did in fact agree both to prevent competitors from entering into their local markets and to forgo competition with each other. And as the Court **1985 recognizes, at the motion to dismiss stage, a judge assumes “that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Ante, at 1965. The majority circumvents this obvious obstacle to dismissal by pretending that it does not exist. The Court admits that “in form a few stray statements in the complaint speak directly of agreement,” but disregards those allegations by saying that “on fair reading these are merely legal conclusions resting on the prior allegations” of parallel conduct. Ante, at 1970. The Court's dichotomy between factual allegations and “legal conclusions” is the stuff of a bygone era, supra, at 1976 – 1977. That distinction was a defining feature of code pleading, see generally Clark, *590 The Complaint in Code Pleading, 35 Yale L.J. 259 (1925–1926), but was conspicuously abolished when the Federal Rules were enacted in 1938. See United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn. of Chicago, 347 U.S. 186, 188, 74 S.Ct. 452, 98 L.Ed. 618 (1954) (holding, in an antitrust case, that the Government's allegations of effects on interstate commerce must be taken into account in deciding whether to dismiss the complaint “[w]hether these charges be called ‘allegations of fact’ or ‘mere conclusions of the pleader’ ”); Brownlee v. Conine, 957 F.2d 353, 354 (C.A.7 1992) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establish a system of notice pleading rather than of fact pleading, ... so the happenstance that a complaint is ‘conclusory,’ whatever exactly that overused lawyers' cliche means, does not automatically condemn it”); Walker Distributing Co. v. Lucky Lager Brewing Co., 323 F.2d 1, 3–4 (C.A.9 1963) (“[O]ne purpose of Rule 8 was to get away from the highly technical distinction between statements of fact and conclusions of law ...”); Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Int'l Union v. Delta, 277 F.2d 694, 697 (C.A.6 1960) (“Under the notice system of pleading established by the Rules of Civil Procedure, ... the ancient distinction between pleading ‘facts' and ‘conclusions' is no longer significant”); 5 Wright & Miller § 1218, at 267 (“[T]he federal rules do not prohibit the pleading of facts or legal conclusions as long as fair notice is given to the parties”). “Defendants entered into a contract” is no more a legal conclusion than “defendant negligently drove,” see Form 9; supra, at 1977. Indeed it is less of one. 9 *591 Even if I were inclined to accept the Court's anachronistic dichotomy and ignore the complaint's actual allegations, I would dispute the Court's suggestion that any inference of agreement from petitioners' parallel conduct is “implausible.” Many years ago a truly great economist perceptively observed that “[p]eople of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” A. Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, in 39 Great Books of the Western World 55 (R. Hutchins & M. Adler eds.1952). I am not so cynical as to accept that sentiment at face value, but I need not do so here. Respondents' complaint **1986 points not only to petitioners' numerous opportunities to meet with each other, Complaint ¶ 46, App. 23, 10 but also to Notebaert's curious statement that encroaching on a fellow incumbent's territory “might be a good way to turn a quick dollar but that doesn't make it right,” id., ¶ 42, App. 22. What did he mean by that? One possible (indeed plausible) inference is that he meant that while it would be in his company's economic selfinterest to compete with its brethren, he had agreed with his competitors not to do so. According to the complaint, that is how the Illinois Coalition for Competitive Telecom construed Notebaert's statement, id., ¶ 44, App. 22 (calling the statement © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 20 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... “evidence of potential collusion among regional Bell phone monopolies to not compete *592 against one another and kill off potential competitors in local phone service”), and that is how Members of Congress construed his company's behavior, id., ¶ 45, App. 23 (describing a letter to the Justice Department requesting an investigation into the possibility that the ILECs' “ ‘very apparent non-competition policy’ ” was coordinated). Perhaps Notebaert meant instead that competition would be sensible in the short term but not in the long run. That's what his lawyers tell us anyway. See Brief for Petitioners 36. But I would think that no one would know better what Notebaert meant than Notebaert himself. Instead of permitting respondents to ask Notebaert, however, the Court looks to other quotes from that and other articles and decides that what he meant was that entering new markets as a competitive local exchange carrier would not be a “ ‘sustainable economic model.’ ” Ante, at 1972 – 1973, n. 13. Never mind that—as anyone ever interviewed knows— a newspaper article is hardly a verbatim transcript; the writer selects quotes to package his story, not to record a subject's views for posterity. But more importantly the District Court was required at this stage of the proceedings to construe Notebaert's ambiguous statement in the plaintiffs' favor. 11 See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 767–768, n. 1, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) (Brennan, J., dissenting). The inference the statement supports—that simultaneous decisions by ILECs not even to attempt to poach customers from one another once the law authorized them to *593 do so were the product of an agreement—sits comfortably within the realm of possibility. That is all the Rules require. To be clear, if I had been the trial judge in this case, I would not have permitted the plaintiffs to engage in massive discovery based solely on the allegations in this complaint. On the other hand, I surely would not have dismissed the complaint **1987 without requiring the defendants to answer the charge that they “have agreed not to compete with one another and otherwise allocated customers and markets to one another.” 12 Complaint, ¶ 51, App. 27. Even a sworn denial of that charge would not justify a summary dismissal without giving the plaintiffs the opportunity to take depositions from Notebaert and at least one responsible executive representing each of the other defendants. Respondents in this case proposed a plan of “ ‘phased discovery’ ” limited to the existence of the alleged conspiracy and class certification. Brief for Respondents 25–26. Two petitioners rejected the plan. Ibid. Whether or not respondents' proposed plan was sensible, it was an appropriate subject for negotiation. 13 Given the charge in the complaint *594 buttressed by the common sense of Adam Smith —I cannot say that the possibility that joint discussions **1988 and perhaps some agreements played a role in petitioners' decisionmaking process is so implausible that dismissing the complaint before any defendant has denied the charge is preferable to granting respondents even a minimal opportunity *595 to prove their claims. See Clark, New Federal Rules 977 (“[T]hrough the weapons of discovery and summary judgment we have developed new devices, with more appropriate penalties to aid in matters of proof, and do not need to force the pleadings to their less appropriate function”). I fear that the unfortunate result of the majority's new pleading rule will be to invite lawyers' debates over economic theory to conclusively resolve antitrust suits in the absence of any evidence. It is no surprise that the antitrust defense bar— among whom “lament” as to inadequate judicial supervision of discovery is most “common,” see ante, at 1967—should lobby for this state of affairs. But “we must recall that their primary responsibility is to win cases for their clients, not to improve law administration for the public.” Clark, Special Pleading in the Big Case 152. As we did in our prior decisions, we should have instructed them that their remedy was to seek to amend the Federal Rules—not our interpretation of them. 14 See 992; Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S., at 515, 122 S.Ct. Crawford–El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 595, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998); 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160. Leatherman, 507 U.S., at IV Just a few weeks ago some of my colleagues explained that a strict interpretation of the literal text of statutory language *596 is essential to avoid judicial decisions that are not faithful to the intent of Congress. Zuni Public School Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Education, ante, p. 108, 127 S.Ct. 1534, 167 L.Ed.2d 449, (2007) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). I happen to believe that there are cases in which other tools of construction are more reliable than text, but I agree of course that congressional intent should guide us in matters of statutory interpretation. Ante, at 106, 127 S.Ct. 1534, 167 L.Ed.2d 449, (STEVENS, J., concurring). This is a case in which the intentions of the drafters of three important sources © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 21 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... of law—the Sherman Act, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—all point unmistakably in the same direction, yet the Court marches resolutely the other way. Whether the Court's actions will benefit only defendants in antitrust treble-damages cases, or whether its test for the sufficiency of a complaint will inure to the benefit of all civil defendants, is a question that the future will answer. But that the Court has announced a significant new rule that does not even purport to respond to any **1989 congressional command is glaringly obvious. The transparent policy concern that drives the decision is the interest in protecting antitrust defendants—who in this case are some of the wealthiest corporations in our economy— from the burdens of pretrial discovery. Ante, at 1966 – 1967. Even if it were not apparent that the legal fees petitioners have incurred in arguing the merits of their Rule 12(b) motion have far exceeded the cost of limited discovery, or that those discovery costs would burden respondents as well as petitioners, 15 that concern would not provide an adequate justification for this law-changing decision. For in the final analysis it is only a lack of confidence in the ability of trial judges to control discovery, buttressed by appellate judges' independent appraisal of the plausibility of profoundly *597 serious factual allegations, that could account for this stark break from precedent. If the allegation of conspiracy happens to be true, today's decision obstructs the congressional policy favoring competition that undergirds both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Sherman Act itself. More importantly, even if there is abundant evidence that the allegation is untrue, directing that the case be dismissed without even looking at any of that evidence marks a fundamental—and unjustified— change in the character of pretrial practice. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. All Citations 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709, 68 Fed.R.Serv.3d 661, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5550, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7097, 41 Communications Reg. (P&F) 567, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 267 Footnotes * 1 2 3 The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499. The 1984 divestiture of AT & T's local telephone service created seven Regional Bell Operating Companies. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, those seven companies were consolidated into the four ILECs named in this suit: BellSouth Corporation, Qwest Communications International, Inc., SBC Communications, Inc., and Verizon Communications, Inc. (successor-in-interest to Bell Atlantic Corporation). Complaint ¶ 21, App. 16. Together, these ILECs allegedly control 90 percent or more of the market for local telephone service in the 48 contiguous States. Id., ¶ 48, App. 26. In setting forth the grounds for § 1 relief, the complaint repeats these allegations in substantially similar language: “Beginning at least as early as February 6, 1996, and continuing to the present, the exact dates being unknown to Plaintiffs, Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy to prevent competitive entry in their respective local telephone and/or high speed internet services markets by, among other things, agreeing not to compete with one another and to stifle attempts by others to compete with them and otherwise allocating customers and markets to one another in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.” Id., ¶ 64, App. 30–31. The dissent greatly oversimplifies matters by suggesting that the Federal Rules somehow dispensed with the pleading of facts altogether. See post, at 1979 (opinion of STEVENS, J.) (pleading standard of Federal Rules © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 22 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... “does not require, or even invite, the pleading of facts”). While, for most types of cases, the Federal Rules eliminated the cumbersome requirement that a claimant “set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim,” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) (emphasis added), Rule 8(a) (2) still requires a “showing,” rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief. Without some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant could satisfy the requirement of providing not only “fair notice” of the nature of the claim, but also “grounds” on which the claim rests. See 5 Wright & Miller § 1202, at 94, 95 (Rule 8(a) “contemplate[s] the statement of circumstances, occurrences, and events in support of the claim presented” and does not authorize a pleader's “bare averment that he wants relief and is entitled to it”). 4 5 6 7 Commentators have offered several examples of parallel conduct allegations that would state a § 1 claim under this standard. See, e.g., 6 Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶ 1425, at 167–185 (discussing “parallel behavior that would probably not result from chance, coincidence, independent responses to common stimuli, or mere interdependence unaided by an advance understanding among the parties”); Blechman, Conscious Parallelism, Signalling and Facilitating Devices: The Problem of Tacit Collusion Under the Antitrust Laws, 24 N.Y.L. S. L.Rev. 881, 899 (1979) (describing “conduct [that] indicates the sort of restricted freedom of action and sense of obligation that one generally associates with agreement”). The parties in this case agree that “complex and historically unprecedented changes in pricing structure made at the very same time by multiple competitors, and made for no other discernible reason,” would support a plausible inference of conspiracy. Brief for Respondents 37; see also Reply Brief for Petitioners 12. The border in DM Research was the line between the conclusory and the factual. Here it lies between the factually neutral and the factually suggestive. Each must be crossed to enter the realm of plausible liability. The dissent takes heart in the reassurances of plaintiffs' counsel that discovery would be “ ‘ “phased” ’ ” and “limited to the existence of the alleged conspiracy and class certification.” Post, at 1987. But determining whether some illegal agreement may have taken place between unspecified persons at different ILECs (each a multibillion dollar corporation with legions of management level employees) at some point over seven years is a sprawling, costly, and hugely time-consuming undertaking not easily susceptible to the kind of line drawing and case management that the dissent envisions. Perhaps the best answer to the dissent's optimism that antitrust discovery is open to effective judicial control is a more extensive quotation of the authority just cited, a judge with a background in antitrust law. Given the system that we have, the hope of effective judicial supervision is slim: “The timing is all wrong. The plaintiff files a sketchy complaint (the Rules of Civil Procedure discourage fulsome documents), and discovery is launched. A judicial officer does not know the details of the case the parties will present and in theory cannot know the details. Discovery is used to find the details. The judicial officer always knows less than the parties, and the parties themselves may not know very well where they are going or what they expect to find. A magistrate supervising discovery does not—cannot—know the expected productivity of a given request, because the nature of the requester's claim and the contents of the files (or head) of the adverse party are unknown. Judicial officers cannot measure the costs and benefits to the requester and so cannot isolate impositional requests. Requesters have no reason to disclose their own estimates because they gain from imposing costs on rivals (and may lose from an improvement in accuracy). The portions of the Rules of Civil Procedure calling on judges to trim back excessive demands, therefore, have been, and are doomed to be, hollow. We cannot prevent what we cannot detect; we cannot detect what we cannot define; we cannot define ‘abusive’ discovery except in theory, because in practice we lack essential information.” Easterbrook, Discovery as Abuse, 69 B.U.L.Rev. 635, 638–639 (1989) (footnote omitted). The Court of Appeals also relied on Chief Judge Clark's suggestion in Nagler v. Admiral Corp., 248 F.2d 319 (C.A.2 1957), that facts indicating parallel conduct alone suffice to state a claim under § 1. 425 F.3d, at 114 (citing Nagler, supra, at 325). But Nagler gave no explanation for citing Theatre Enterprises (which upheld a denial of a directed verdict for plaintiff on the ground that proof of parallelism was not proof of conspiracy) as authority that pleading parallel conduct sufficed to plead a Sherman Act conspiracy. Now © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 23 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... that 8 Monsanto Co. v. Spray–Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984), and Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), have made it clear that neither parallel conduct nor conscious parallelism, taken alone, raise the necessary implication of conspiracy, it is time for a fresh look at adequacy of pleading when a claim rests on parallel action. Because Conley's “ ‘no set of facts' ” language was one of our earliest statements about pleading under the Federal Rules, it is no surprise that it has since been “cited as authority” by this Court and others. Post, at 1978. Although we have not previously explained the circumstances and rejected the literal reading of the passage embraced by the Court of Appeals, our analysis comports with this Court's statements in the years since Conley. See Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577(2005) (requiring “ ‘reasonably founded hope that the [discovery] process will reveal relevant evidence’ ” to support the claim (quoting Blue ChipStamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 741, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975));(alteration in Dura )); Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983) (“It is not ... proper to assume that [the plaintiff] can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the antitrust laws in ways that have not been alleged”); Wilson v. Schnettler, 365 U.S. 381, 383, 81 S.Ct. 632, 5 L.Ed.2d 620 (1961) (“In the absence of ... an allegation [that the arrest was made without probable cause] the courts below could not, nor can we, assume that respondents arrested petitioner without probable cause to believe that he had committed ... a narcotics offense”). Nor are we reaching out to decide this issue in a case where the matter was not raised by the parties, see post, at 1979, since both the ILECs and the Government highlight the problems stemming from a literal interpretation of Conley's “no set of facts” language and seek clarification of the standard. Brief for Petitioners 27–28; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22–25; see also Brief for Respondents 17 (describing “[p]etitioners and their amici” as mounting an “attack on Conley's ‘no set of facts' standard”). The dissent finds relevance in Court of Appeals precedents from the 1940s, which allegedly gave rise to Conley's “no set of facts” language. See post, at 1979 – 1981. Even indulging this line of analysis, these cases do not challenge the understanding that, before proceeding to discovery, a complaint must allege facts suggestive of illegal conduct. See, e.g., Leimer v. State Mut. Life Assurance Co. of Worcester, Mass., 108 F.2d 302, 305 (C.A.8 1940) (“ ‘[I]f, in view of what is alleged, it can reasonably be conceived that the plaintiffs ... could, upon a trial, establish a case which would entitle them to ... relief, the motion to dismiss should not have been granted’ ”); Continental Collieries, Inc. v. Shober, 130 F.2d 631, 635 (C.A.3 1942) (“No matter how likely it may seem that the pleader will be unable to prove his case, he is entitled, upon averring a claim, to an opportunity to try to prove it”). Rather, these cases stand for the unobjectionable proposition that, when a complaint adequately states a claim, it may not be dismissed based on a district court's assessment that the plaintiff will fail to find evidentiary support for his allegations or prove his claim 9 10 to the satisfaction of the factfinder. Cf. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a district court weighing a motion to dismiss asks “not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims”). See Complaint ¶¶ 51, 64, App. 27, 30–31 (alleging that ILECs engaged in a “contract, combination or conspiracy” and agreed not to compete with one another). If the complaint had not explained that the claim of agreement rested on the parallel conduct described, we doubt that the complaint's references to an agreement among the ILECs would have given the notice required by Rule 8. Apart from identifying a 7-year span in which the § 1 violations were supposed to have occurred (i. e., “[b]eginning at least as early as February 6, 1996, and continuing to the present,” id., ¶ 64, App. 30), the pleadings mentioned no specific time, place, or person involved in the alleged conspiracies. This lack of notice contrasts sharply with the model form for pleading negligence, Form 9, which the dissent © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 24 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... says exemplifies the kind of “bare allegation” that survives a motion to dismiss. Post, at 1977. Whereas the model form alleges that the defendant struck the plaintiff with his car while plaintiff was crossing a particular highway at a specified date and time, the complaint here furnishes no clue as to which of the four ILECs (much less which of their employees) supposedly agreed, or when and where the illicit agreement took place. A defendant wishing to prepare an answer in the simple fact pattern laid out in Form 9 would know what to 11 12 13 14 answer; a defendant seeking to respond to plaintiffs' conclusory allegations in the § 1 context would have little idea where to begin. The dissent's quotations from the complaint leave the impression that plaintiffs directly allege illegal agreement; in fact, they proceed exclusively via allegations of parallel conduct, as both the District Court and Court of Appeals recognized. See 313 F.Supp.2d 174, 182 (S.D.N.Y.2003); 425 F.3d 99, 102– 104 (C.A.2 2005). From the allegation that the ILECs belong to various trade associations, see Complaint ¶ 46, App. 23, the dissent playfully suggests that they conspired to restrain trade, an inference said to be “buttressed by the common sense of Adam Smith.” Post, at 1985 – 1986, 1987 – 1988. If Adam Smith is peering down today, he may be surprised to learn that his tongue-in-cheek remark would be authority to force his famous pinmaker to devote financial and human capital to hire lawyers, prepare for depositions, and otherwise fend off allegations of conspiracy; all this just because he belonged to the same trade guild as one of his competitors when their pins carried the same price tag. The complaint quoted a reported statement of Qwest's CEO, Richard Notebaert, to suggest that the ILECs declined to compete against each other despite recognizing that it “ ‘might be a good way to turn a quick dollar.’ ” ¶ 42, App. 22 (quoting Chicago Tribune, Oct. 31, 2002, Business Section, p. 1). This was only part of what he reportedly said, however, and the District Court was entitled to take notice of the full contents of the published articles referenced in the complaint, from which the truncated quotations were drawn. See Fed. Rule Evid. 201. Notebaert was also quoted as saying that entering new markets as a CLEC would not be “a sustainable economic model” because the CLEC pricing model is “just ... nuts.” Chicago Tribune, Oct. 31, 2002, Business Section, p. 1 (cited at Complaint ¶ 42, App. 22). Another source cited in the complaint quotes Notebaert as saying he thought it “unwise” to “base a business plan” on the privileges accorded to CLECs under the 1996 Act because the regulatory environment was too unstable. Chicago Tribune, Dec. 19, 2002, Business Section, p. 2 (cited at Complaint ¶ 45, App. 23). In reaching this conclusion, we do not apply any “heightened” pleading standard, nor do we seek to broaden the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9, which can only be accomplished “ ‘by the process of amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation.’ ” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 515, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (quoting Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993)). On certain subjects understood to raise a high risk of abusive litigation, a plaintiff must state factual allegations with 1 2 3 greater particularity than Rule 8 requires. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 9(b)- (c). Here, our concern is not that the allegations in the complaint were insufficiently “particular[ized],” ibid.; rather, the complaint warranted dismissal because it failed in toto to render plaintiffs' entitlement to relief plausible. See 9 W. Holdsworth, History of English Law 324–327 (1926). Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 283, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988). The Federal Rules do impose a “particularity” requirement on “all averments of fraud or mistake,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 9(b), neither of which has been alleged in this case. We have recognized that the canon of expresio unius est exclusio alterius applies to Rule 9(b). See Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993). © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 25 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... 4 SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 818, 122 S.Ct. 1899, 153 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629, 654, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999); 509 U.S. 764, 811, 113 S.Ct. 2891, 125 L.Ed.2d 612 (1993); 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989); 163 (1980) (per curiam); Davis v. Monroe County Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 598, Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d McLain v. Real Estate Bd. of New Orleans, Inc., 444 U.S. 232, 246, 100 S.Ct. 502, 62 L.Ed.2d 441 (1980); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 746, 96 S.Ct. 1848, 48 L.Ed.2d 338 (1976); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); U.S. 319, 322, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972) (per curiam); S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam); 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969) (plurality opinion); see also Cruz v. Beto, 405 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521, 92 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 422, 89 S.Ct. 1843, Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 554, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U.S. 558, 587, 104 S.Ct. 1989, 80 L.Ed.2d 590 (1984) (STEVENS, J., dissenting); United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 561, n. 1, 97 S.Ct. 1885, 52 L.Ed.2d 571 (1977) (Marshall, J., dissenting); Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 55, n. 6, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). 5 See, e.g., EB Invs., LLC v. Atlantis Development, Inc., 930 So.2d 502, 507 (Ala.2005); Health & Social Servs. v. Native Village of Curyung, 151 P.3d 388, 396 (Alaska 2006); Department of Newman v. Maricopa Cty., 167 Ariz. 501, 503, 808 P.2d 1253, 1255 (App.1991); Public Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Van Wyk, 27 P.3d 377, 385–386 (Colo.2001) (en banc); Clawson v. St. Louis Post–Dispatch, LLC, 906 A.2d 308, 312 (D.C.2006); Hillman Constr. Corp. v. Wainer, 636 So.2d 576, 578 (Fla.App.1994); Kaplan v. Kaplan, 266 Ga. 612, 613, 469 S.E.2d 198, 199 (1996); Wright v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 111 Hawai‘i 401, 406, 142 P.3d 265, 270 (2006); Taylor v. Maile, 142 Idaho 253, 257, 127 P.3d 156, 160 (2005); Fink v. Bryant, 2001– CC–0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), 801 So.2d 346, 349; Gagne v. Cianbro Corp., 431 A.2d 1313, 1318–1319 (Me.1981); Gasior v. Massachusetts Gen. Hospital, 446 Mass. 645, 647, 846 N.E.2d 1133, 1135 (2006); Ralph Walker, Inc. v. Gallagher, 926 So.2d 890, 893 (Miss.2006); Jones v. Montana Univ. System, 337 Mont. 1, 7, 155 P.3d 1247, 1252 (2007); Johnston v. Nebraska Dept. of Correctional Servs., 270 Neb. 987, 989, 709 N.W.2d 321, 324 (2006); Blackjack Bonding v. Las Vegas Munic. Ct., 116 Nev. 1213, 1217, 14 P.3d 1275, 1278 (2000); Shepard v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 361 N.C. 137, 139, 638 S.E.2d 197, 199 (2006); Rose v. United Equitable Ins. Co., 2001 ND 154, ¶ 10, 632 N.W.2d 429, 434; State ex rel. Turner v. Houk, 112 Ohio St.3d 561, 562, 2007–Ohio–814, ¶ 5, 862 N.E.2d 104, 105 (per curiam); Moneypenney v. Dawson, 2006 OK 53, ¶ 2, 141 P.3d 549, 551; Gagnon v. State, 570 A.2d 656, 659 (R.I.1990); Farrier, 2003 SD 28, ¶ 4, 659 N.W.2d 20, 22 (per curiam); Osloond v. Smith v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., 712 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tenn.1986); Association of Haystack Property Owners, Inc. v. Sprague, 145 Vt. 443, 446, 494 A.2d 122, 124 (1985); In re Coday, 156 Wash.2d 485, 497, 130 P.3d 809, 815 (2006) (en banc); Haines v. Hampshire Cty. Comm'n, 216 W.Va. 499, 502, 607 S.E.2d 828, 831 (2004); Warren v. Hart, 747 P.2d 511, 512 (Wyo.1987); see also Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 1075, 1082–1083 (Del.2001) (permitting dismissal only “where the court determines with reasonable certainty that the plaintiff could prevail on no set of facts that may be inferred from the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Canel © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 26 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... v. Topinka, 212 Ill.2d 311, 318, 288 Ill.Dec. 623, 818 N.E.2d 311, 317 (2004) (replacing “appears beyond doubt” in the Conley formulation with “is clearly apparent”); In re Young, 522 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind.1988) (per curiam) (replacing “appears beyond doubt” with “appears to a certainty”); Barkema v. Williams Pipeline Co., 666 N.W.2d 612, 614 (Iowa 2003) (holding that a motion to dismiss should be sustained “only when there exists no conceivable set of facts entitling the non-moving party to relief”); Pioneer Village v. Bullitt Cty., 104 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Ky.2003) (holding that judgment on the pleadings should be granted “if it appears beyond doubt that the nonmoving party cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle him/her to relief”); Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 470 Mich. 274, 277, 681 N.W.2d 342, 345 (2004) (per curiam) (holding that a motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted only “ ‘if no factual development could possibly justify recovery’ 6 7 8 ”); Oberkramer v. Ellisville, 706 S.W.2d 440, 441 (Mo.1986) (en banc) (omitting the words “beyond doubt” from the Conley formulation); Colman v. Utah State Land Bd., 795 P.2d 622, 624 (Utah 1990) (holding that a motion to dismiss is appropriate “only if it clearly appears that [the plaintiff] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim”); NRC Management Servs. Corp. v. First Va. Bank–Southwest, 63 Va. Cir. 68, 70, 2003 WL 23540085 (2003) ( “The Virginia standard is identical [to the Conley formulation], though the Supreme Court of Virginia may not have used the same words to describe it”). The majority is correct to say that what the Federal Rules require is a “ ‘showing’ ” of entitlement to relief. Ante, at 1965, n. 3. Whether and to what extent that “showing” requires allegations of fact will depend on the particulars of the claim. For example, had the amended complaint in this case alleged only parallel conduct, it would not have made the required “showing.” See supra, at 1974. Similarly, had the pleadings contained only an allegation of agreement, without specifying the nature or object of that agreement, they would have been susceptible to the charge that they did not provide sufficient notice that the defendants may answer intelligently. Omissions of that sort instance the type of “bareness” with which the Federal Rules are concerned. A plaintiff's inability to persuade a district court that the allegations actually included in her complaint are “plausible” is an altogether different kind of failing, and one that should not be fatal at the pleading stage. See also 5 Wright & Miller § 1202, at 89–90 (“[P]leadings under the rules simply may be a general summary of the party's position that is sufficient to advise the other party of the event being sued upon, to provide some guidance in a subsequent proceeding as to what was decided for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and to indicate whether the case should be tried to the court or to a jury. No more is demanded of the pleadings than this; indeed, history shows that no more can be performed successfully by the pleadings” (footnotes omitted)). Our decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005), is not to the contrary. There, the plaintiffs failed adequately to allege loss causation, a required element in a private securities fraud action. Because it alleged nothing more than that the prices of the securities the plaintiffs purchased were artificially inflated, the Dura complaint failed to “provid[e] the defendants with notice of what the relevant economic loss might be or of what the causal connection might be between that loss and the [alleged] misrepresentation.” Id., at 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627. Here, the failure the majority identifies is not a failure of notice—which “notice pleading” rightly condemns—but rather a failure to satisfy the Court that the agreement alleged might plausibly have occurred. That being a question not of notice but of proof, it should not be answered without first hearing from the defendants (as apart from their lawyers). Similarly, in Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983), in which we also found an antitrust complaint wanting, the problem was not that the injuries the plaintiffs alleged failed to satisfy some threshold of plausibility, but rather that the injuries as alleged were not “the type that the antitrust statute was intended to forestall.” Id., at 540, 103 S.Ct. 897; see id., at 526, 103 S.Ct. 897 (“As the case comes to us, we must assume that the Union can prove the facts © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 27 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... 9 alleged in its amended complaint. It is not, however, proper to assume that the Union can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the antitrust laws in ways that have not been alleged”). The Court suggests that the allegation of an agreement, even if credited, might not give the notice required by Rule 8 because it lacks specificity. Ante, at 1970 – 1971, n. 10. The remedy for an allegation lacking sufficient specificity to provide adequate notice is, of course, a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement. See 10 Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 514, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). Petitioners made no such motion and indeed have conceded that “[o]ur problem with the current complaint is not a lack of specificity, it's quite specific.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 14. Thus, the fact that “the pleadings mentioned no specific time, place, or persons involved in the alleged conspiracies,” ante, at 1971, n. 10, is, for our purposes, academic. The Court describes my reference to the allegation that the defendants belong to various trade associations as “playfully” suggesting that the defendants conspired to restrain trade. Ante, at 1971 – 1972, n. 12. Quite the contrary: An allegation that competitors meet on a regular basis, like the allegations of parallel conduct, is consistent with—though not sufficient to prove—the plaintiffs' entirely serious and unequivocal allegation that the defendants entered into an unlawful agreement. Indeed, if it were true that the plaintiffs “rest their 11 12 13 § 1 claim on descriptions of parallel conduct and not on any independent allegation of actual agreement among the ILECs,” ante, at 1970, there would have been no purpose in including a reference to the trade association meetings in the amended complaint. It is ironic that the Court seeks to justify its decision to draw factual inferences in the defendants' favor at the pleading stage by citing to a rule of evidence, ante, at 1972 – 1973, n. 13. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), a judicially noticed fact “must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Whether Notebaert's statements constitute evidence of a conspiracy is hardly beyond reasonable dispute. The Court worries that a defendant seeking to respond to this “conclusory” allegation “would have little idea where to begin.” Ante, at 1971, n. 10. A defendant could, of course, begin by either denying or admitting the charge. The potential for “sprawling, costly, and hugely time-consuming” discovery, ante, at 1967, n. 6, is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Court vastly underestimates a district court's case-management arsenal. Before discovery even begins, the court may grant a defendant's Rule 12(e) motion; Rule 7(a) permits a trial court to order a plaintiff to reply to a defendant's answer, see Crawford–El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998); and Rule 23 requires “rigorous analysis” to ensure that class certification is appropriate, General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982); see In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 471 F.3d 24 (C.A.2 2006) (holding that a district court may not certify a class without ruling that each Rule 23 requirement is met, even if a requirement overlaps with a merits issue). Rule 16 invests a trial judge with the power, backed by sanctions, to regulate pretrial proceedings via conferences and scheduling orders, at which the parties may discuss, inter alia, “the elimination of frivolous claims or defenses,” Rule 16(c)(1); “the necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings,” Rule 16(c)(2); “the control and scheduling of discovery,” Rule 16(c)(6); and “the need for adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems,” Rule 16(c)(12). Subsequently, Rule 26 confers broad discretion to control the combination of interrogatories, requests for admissions, production requests, and depositions permitted in a given case; the sequence in which such discovery devices may be deployed; and the limitations imposed upon them. See 523 U.S., at 598–599, 118 S.Ct. 1584. Indeed, Rule 26(c) specifically permits a court to take actions “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” by, for example, disallowing a particular discovery request, setting appropriate terms and conditions, or limiting its scope. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 28 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709... In short, the Federal Rules contemplate that pretrial matters will be settled through a flexible process of give and take, of proffers, stipulations, and stonewalls, not by having trial judges screen allegations for their plausibility vel non without requiring an answer from the defendant. See Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 206, 78 S.Ct. 1087, 2 L.Ed.2d 1255 (1958) (“Rule 34 is sufficiently flexible to be adapted to the exigencies of particular litigation”). And should it become apparent over the course of litigation that a plaintiff's filings bespeak an in terrorem suit, the district court has at its call its own in terrorem device, in the form of a wide array of Rule 11 sanctions. See Rules 11(b), (c) (authorizing sanctions if a suit is presented “for any improper purpose, such as to harass or 14 15 to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation”); see Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 111 S.Ct. 922, 112 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1991) (holding that Rule 11 applies to a represented party who signs a pleading, motion, or other papers, as well as to attorneys); Atkins v. Fischer, 232 F.R.D. 116, 126 (D.D.C.2005) (“As possible sanctions pursuant to Rule 11, the court has an arsenal of options at its disposal”). Given his “background in antitrust law,” ante, at 1968, n. 6, Judge Easterbrook has recognized that the most effective solution to discovery abuse lies in the legislative and rulemaking arenas. He has suggested that the remedy for the ills he complains of requires a revolution in the rules of civil procedure: “Perhaps a system in which judges pare away issues and focus [on] investigation is too radical to contemplate in this country—although it prevailed here before 1938, when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted. The change could not be accomplished without abandoning notice pleading, increasing the number of judicial officers, and giving them more authority .... If we are to rule out judge-directed discovery, however, we must be prepared to pay the piper. Part of the price is the high cost of unnecessary discovery—impositional and otherwise.” Discovery as Abuse, 69 B.U.L.Rev. 635, 645 (1989). It would be quite wrong, of course, to assume that dismissal of an antitrust case after discovery is costless to plaintiffs. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(d)(1) (“[C]osts other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs”). End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 29 Hudson v. Artuz, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (1998) 1998 WL 832708 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, S.D. New York. Theodore HUDSON, Plaintiff, v. Christopher ARTUZ, Warden Philip Coombe, Commissioner Sergeant Ambrosino Doctor Manion Defendants. No. 95 CIV. 4768(JSR). | Nov. 30, 1998. Attorneys and Law Firms Mr. Theodore Hudson, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Comstock. Alfred A. Delicata, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, New York. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BUCHWALD, Magistrate J. *1 Plaintiff Theodore Hudson filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 26, 1995. Plaintiff's complaint alleges defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility. 1 Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed sua sponte by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on June 26, 1995 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). On September 26, 1995, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The case was reassigned to Judge Barbara S. Jones on January 31, 1996. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) on November 25, 1996. Thereafter, the case was reassigned to Judge Jed S. Rakoff on February 26, 1997. On February 26, 1998, Judge Rakoff granted defendants' motion to dismiss, but vacated the judgment on April 10, 1998 in response to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in which plaintiff claimed that he never received defendants' motion to dismiss. By Judge Rakoff's Order dated April 14, 1998, this case was referred to me for general pretrial purposes and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive motion. Presently pending is defendants' renewed motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed a reply on July 6, 1998. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff is granted leave to replead within thirty (30) days of the date of the entry of this order. FACTS Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by four inmates in the Green Haven Correctional Facility mess hall on March 14, 1995. (Complaint at 4.) He alleges that he was struck with a pipe and a fork while in the “pop room” between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. (Complaint at 4–5.) Plaintiff contends that the attack left him with 11 stitches in his head, chronic headaches, nightmares, and pain in his arm, shoulder, and back. (Id.) Plaintiff also states that Sergeant Ambrosino “failed to secure [the] area and separate” him from his attackers. (Reply at 5.) Plaintiff's claim against Warden Artuz is that he “fail [sic] to qualify as warden.” (Complaint at 4.) Plaintiff names Commissioner Coombes as a defendant, alleging Coombes “fail [sic] to appoint a qualified warden over security.” (Amended Complaint at 5.) Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. Manion refused to give him pain medication. (Complaint at 5.) Plaintiff seeks to “prevent violent crimes” and demands $6,000,000 in damages. (Amended Complaint at 5.) Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that: (1) the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state defendants for money damages; (2) the plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim for a constitutional violation; (3) the defendants are qualifiedly immune from damages; and (4) plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing this suit. DISCUSSION I find that plaintiff's complaint runs afoul of Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and dismiss the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. Federal Rule 8 requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The purpose of this Rule “is to give fair notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Hudson v. Artuz, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (1998) answer [and] prepare an adequate defense.” Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162 F.R.D. 15, 16 (N.D.N.Y.1995) (quoting Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C.1977)); relief.” Conley v.. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). The complaint of a pro se litigant is to be liberally construed in his favor when determining see Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir.1988) (stating that the “principal function of pleadings under the Federal Rules is to give the adverse party fair notice of the claim asserted so as to enable him to answer and prepare for trial”). whether he has stated a meritorious claim. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Even if it is difficult to determine the actual substance of the plaintiff's complaint, outright dismissal without leave to amend the complaint is generally disfavored as an abuse *2 Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires, inter alia, that the allegations in a plaintiff's complaint be made in numbered paragraphs, each of which should recite, as far as practicable, only a single set of circumstances. Moore's Federal Practice, Vol. 2A, ¶ 10.03 (1996). Rule 10 also requires that each claim upon which plaintiff seeks relief be founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence. Id. 2 The purpose of Rule 10 is to “provide an easy mode of identification for referring to a particular paragraph in a prior pleading.” Sandler v. Capanna, 92 Civ. 4838, 1992 WL 392597, *3 (E.D.Pa. Dec.17, 1992) (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1323 at 735 (1990)). A complaint that fails to comply with these pleading rules “presents far too heavy a burden in terms of defendants' duty to shape a comprehensive defense and provides no meaningful basis for the Court to assess the sufficiency of” a plaintiff's claims. Gonzales v. Wing, 167 F.R.D. 352, 355 (N.D.N.Y.1996). It may therefore be dismissed by the court. Id.; see also Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d at 42 (“When a complaint does not comply with the requirement that it be short and plain, the court has the power to, on its own initiative, ... dismiss the complaint”). Dismissal, however, is “usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Id. In those cases in which the court dismisses a pro se complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8, it should give the plaintiff leave to amend when the complaint states a claim that is on its face nonfrivolous. Cir.1995). Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d In determining whether a nonfrivolous claim is stated, the complaint's allegations are taken as true, and the “complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to of discretion. See Salahuddin, 861 F.2d at 42–42; see also Doe v. City of New York, No. 97 Civ. 420, 1997 WL 124214, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.12, 1997). Here, plaintiff's pro se complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules 8 and 10. The complaint is often illegible and largely incomprehensible, scattering what appear to be allegations specific to plaintiff within a forest of headnotes copied from prior opinions. Defendants have answered with a boilerplate brief, which is perhaps all a defendant can do when faced with such a complaint. The Court is left with an insurmountable burden in attempting to make a reasoned ruling on such muddled pleadings. *3 Although plaintiff's complaint is substantially incomprehensible, it appears to plead at least some claims that cannot be termed frivolous on their face. For example, plaintiff clearly alleges that inmates assaulted him and that Dr. Manion refused to provide him medical attention. He also appears to assert that Sergeant Ambrosino failed to protect him from the attack or take steps to prevent future attacks. (Plaintiff's Reply at 5). It is well established that an inmate's constitutional rights are violated when prison officials act with deliberate indifference to his safety or with intent to cause him harm. Hendricks v. Coughlin, 942 F.2d 109 (2d Cir.1991). It is similarly well established that an inmate's constitutional rights are violated when a prison doctor denies his request for medical care with deliberate indifference to the inmate's serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Hathaway v. Coughlin, 37 F.3d 63 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1154, 115 S.Ct. 1108, 130 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1995). Although plaintiff provides few facts to support his allegations, I disagree with defendants' assertion that outright dismissal is appropriate because it “appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Defendant's Memorandum at 5 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Hudson v. Artuz, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (1998) Because plaintiff's complaint does not comply with Rules 8 and 10, it is hereby dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff is granted leave to replead within thirty (30) days of the date of the entry of this Order. In drafting his second amended complaint, plaintiff is directed to number each paragraph and order the paragraphs chronologically, so that each incident in which he alleges a constitutional violation is described in the order that it occurred. Plaintiff is also directed to specifically describe the actions of each defendant that caused plaintiff harm, and to do so in separate paragraphs for each defendant. Plaintiff's complaint shall contain the facts specific to the incidents plaintiff alleges occurred, and not any facts relating to any case that has been decided previously by a court of law. Plaintiff's complaint shall also contain a clear statement of the relief he seeks in addition to monetary damages. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff is granted leave to replead within thirty (30) days of the date of the entry of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. All Citations Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 1998 WL 832708 Footnotes 1 2 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility. Rule 10 states: (b) Paragraphs; Separate Statements. All averments of claim or defense shall be made in numbered paragraphs, the contents of each of which shall be limited as far as practicable to a statement of a single set of circumstances; and a paragraph may be referred to by number in all succeeding pleadings. Each claim founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence and each defense other than denials shall be stated in a separate count or defense whenever a separation facilitates the clear presentation of the matters set forth. End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Sheehy v. Brown, 335 Fed.Appx. 102 (2009) such conspiracy, as required to state a claim for 335 Fed.Appx. 102 This case was not selected for publication in West's Federal Reporter. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Sandra SHEEHY, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Thomas P. BROWN, et al., Defendants–Appellees. No. 08–0102–cv. | June 23, 2009. Synopsis Background: Plaintiffs appealed, pro se, a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Telesca, J., sua sponte dismissing their complaint. conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. U.S.C.A. § 1985. 42 238 Cases that cite this headnote *103 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Attorneys and Law Firms Sandra Sheehy, pro se. Robert Sheehy, pro se. Patrick Sheehy, pro se. Bobbi Sheehy, pro se. Holdings: The Court of Appeals held that: [1] plaintiffs failed to establish § 1983 claims arising out of their allegedly false prosecutions, and [2] plaintiffs failed to state a claim for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. Affirmed. Sherry Sheehy, pro se. PRESENT: Hon. PIERRE N. LEVAL, Hon. ROSEMARY S. POOLER and Hon. B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges. **1 Plaintiffs–Appellants Sandra, Robert, Patrick, Bobbi, Billie, Casey, and Sherri Sheehy, pro se, appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.), sua sponte dismissing Civil Rights Criminal prosecutions Plaintiffs failed to allege that their convictions or sentences were invalidated or otherwise expunged, as required to establish § 1983 claims arising out of their allegedly false prosecutions. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. 27 Cases that cite this headnote [2] Casey Sheehy, pro se. SUMMARY ORDER West Headnotes (2) [1] Billie Sheehy, pro se. Conspiracy Civil rights conspiracies Plaintiffs failed to allege the formation of a conspiracy, and overt acts in furtherance of the complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, procedural history and issues on appeal. Having reviewed de novo the district court's sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e), see Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149–50 (2d Cir.2001), we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Appellants' complaint. [1] First, any 42 U.S.C. § 1981 or § 1983 claim against Appellees Lucy or Edward Sherwood, Thomas Fuoco, Mark Wattenberg, or Steve Presutti was properly dismissed, © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Sheehy v. Brown, 335 Fed.Appx. 102 (2009) as private actors and institutions generally are not proper § 1983 defendants. See American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49–50, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999) ( § 1983 actions do not reach purely private conduct). Additionally, for an individual to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, he or she “must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal ... or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus....” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Thus, any § 1983 claims arising out of the allegedly false prosecutions of Sandra, Patrick, or Robert Sheehy were appropriately dismissed, as Appellants did not allege that their convictions or sentences were invalidated or otherwise expunged. Id. *104 As for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Allegany County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Appellee Presutti, claims against these defendants were properly dismissed, as Appellants did not allege any wrongdoing on their part or specify how they were involved in the constitutional violations alleged. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Next, to the extent that Appellants challenge the conduct of county district attorneys or state court judges, such actors are entitled to immunity. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 766, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430–31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993). Appellants also assert § 1983 claims against: (1) county sanitation workers for entering the Sheehys' property, in violation of their property and privacy rights; (2) state troopers for use of excessive force and retaliation; and (3) Allegany County Department of Social Services employees for entering the Sheehys' property and removing the Sheehy children from their homes, in violation of their First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendment rights. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Thus, a pleading that only “tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” will not suffice. Id. (internal citations and alterations omitted). We conclude that because the Appellants' § 1983 allegations are so vague as to fail to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them, the district court did not err in dismissing them. **2 [2] Appellants also assert claims under § 1985, for which a plaintiff must allege: (1) a conspiracy, (2) which has an intent or purpose to deprive a person of equal protection of the law; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) which results in an injury to a person, or a person's property, or the deprivation of a federal constitutional right. See Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp., 7 F.3d 1085, 1087 (2d Cir.1993) (per curiam). Here, the Appellants' claims of conspiracy failed to specifically allege (1) the formation of a conspiracy; or (2) overt acts in furtherance of such conspiracy. Thus, the district court correctly dismissed any claims brought pursuant to §§ 1985 and 1986. To the extent that Appellants assert claims based on the violation of federal criminal statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 241– 242, these claims are not cognizable, as federal criminal statutes do not provide private causes of action. See Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 511 (2d Cir.1994). In addition, any claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, which prohibits the exclusion of individuals from a federally funded program or activity on the basis of race, color, or national origin, properly was dismissed, as Appellants did not allege that they were excluded from a federally funded program or activity and, thus, no claim exists under that statute. Similarly, although former 42 U.S.C. § 13981 authorized a cause of action arising out of a crime of violence motivated by gender, the Supreme Court has held that statute unconstitutional. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 601, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000). We have reviewed Appellants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. We also note here that we see no *105 indication in the record that Appellants perfected service on any of the defendants in this case. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Sheehy v. Brown, 335 Fed.Appx. 102 (2009) All Citations 335 Fed.Appx. 102, 2009 WL 1762856 End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162 F.R.D. 15 (1995) 33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 341 defendant or source of court's jurisdiction over suit, and did not provide adequate description of particular acts by defendant which led to suit or explanation of how acts were illegal. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 8, 28 U.S.C.A. 162 F.R.D. 15 United States District Court, N.D. New York. Tonya R. POWELL, Plaintiff, v. MARINE MIDLAND BANK, Defendant. 58 Cases that cite this headnote [3] No. 95–CV–63. | June 23, 1995. Federal Civil Procedure Immaterial, Irrelevant or Unresponsive Matter Federal Civil Procedure indirect or prolix matter Redundant, Synopsis Bank brought motion to dismiss complaint filed by pro se plaintiff, and the District Court, McAvoy, Chief Judge, held that: (1) complaint violated requirements of rule governing pleading requiring short and plain statement of claim for relief due to failure to indicate laws allegedly violated by bank or provide adequate description of acts by bank which led to suit or explanation of how acts were illegal, and (2) complaint would be dismissed without prejudice. Federal Civil Procedure general Insufficiency in Motion granted. 60 Cases that cite this headnote Procedural Posture(s): Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. West Headnotes (4) [1] Federal Civil Procedure Pleadings Pro Se or Lay While rule governing pleadings affords wide latitude to plaintiff in framing complaint, especially if plaintiff is pro se litigant, this does not mean that any complaint will be acceptable simply by virtue of fact that it is filed by pro se plaintiff. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 8, 28 U.S.C.A. When complaint does not comply with rule governing pleadings, court may strike any portion of complaint that is redundant or immaterial; however, where complaint is so ambiguous and vague that its true substance, if any, is well disguised, dismissal is proper. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 8, 28 U.S.C.A. [4] Federal Civil Procedure Pleading over Normally where court dismisses complaint due to violation of rules governing pleading, court grants leave to amend complaint. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 8, 28 U.S.C.A. 15 Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms *15 Tonya R. Powell, Binghamton, NY, pro se. Paul K. Holbrook, Marine Midland Bank, Buffalo, NY, for defendant. 134 Cases that cite this headnote [2] MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER Federal Civil Procedure Particular Actions, Insufficiency of Pleadings in McAVOY, Chief Justice. Plaintiff's complaint violated requirements of rule governing pleading and was dismissed without prejudice where complaint gave no indication of laws allegedly violated by I. BACKGROUND On January 17, 1995, plaintiff, Tonya R. Powell, filed this action against Marine Midland Bank. She then attempted © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162 F.R.D. 15 (1995) 33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 341 to serve the defendant by mailing a summons and other documents to the law firm of Harter, Secrest & Emery in Rochester, New York. The law firm forwarded the material to Marine Midland in Buffalo, New York. On February 27, 1995, defendant filed a motion for dismissal citing a variety of grounds including failure to effect proper service of process pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(4) and (5). *16 On March 9, 1995, plaintiff again attempted to serve defendant by mailing a new summons, a U.S. Marshall's Service “Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summons and Complaint by Mail,” and supporting documentation directly to Marine Midland. Marine Midland executed the Notice and Acknowledgement and returned it on March 23, 1995. Now before the court is defendant's motion for dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and (e), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6). Plaintiff opposes this motion. II. ANALYSIS A. Requirements of Rule 8(a) and 8(e) Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) requires that a pleading setting forth a claim for relief contain a short and plain statement of the court's jurisdiction, a demand for relief, and “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e) requires that each claim in the pleading be “simple, concise, and direct” and also notes that “no technical forms of pleading or motions are required.” Additionally, it must be recognized that Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(f) dictates that “all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” The purpose of Rule 8 was well summarized by the District Court for the District of Columbia when it stated that: [t]he purpose of the rule is to give fair notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata is applicable. Beyond this, the rule serves to sharpen the issues to be litigated and to confine discovery and the presentation of evidence at trial within reasonable bounds. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C.1977) (emphasis added). In a similar vein, the Southern District of New York has stated that: [t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure envision a system of simplified pleadings that give notice of the general claim asserted, allow for the preparation of a basic defense, narrow the issues to be litigated, and provide a means for quick disposition of sham claims. Federal pleadings are designed for integration into a system of pre-trial motions, discovery and conferences, which further sharpen the claims to be litigated and which expedite the process of adjudication. Prezzi v. Berzak, 57 F.R.D. 149, 151 (S.D.N.Y.1972) (emphasis in original). [1] Nonetheless, Rule 8 still affords wide latitude to the plaintiff in framing her complaint, especially if the plaintiff is a pro se litigant. Id. at 150; Brown, 75 F.R.D. at 499. However, this does not mean that any complaint will be acceptable under Rule 8 simply by virtue of the fact that it is filed by a pro se plaintiff. In fact, courts in many cases have dismissed pro se complaints due to failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 8. See, e.g., Lonesome v. Lebedeff, 141 F.R.D. 397 (E.D.N.Y.1992); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40 (2d Cir.1988); Brown v. Califano, supra; Prezzi v. Berzak, supra. [2] Plaintiff's complaint clearly violates the requirements of Rule 8. It contains no “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” It gives the court no indication of the laws allegedly violated by the defendant or the source of the court's jurisdiction over the suit. It does not provide an adequate description of the particular acts by the defendant which led to this suit or an explanation of how such acts were illegal. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162 F.R.D. 15 (1995) 33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 341 and returning the Notice and Acknowledgment. Moreover, [3] [4] When a complaint does not comply with Rule 8, the although plaintiff's complaint has now been found defective under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, plaintiff served the same complaint that court may strike any portion of the complaint that is redundant she had filed with the court along with the summons on both or immaterial. However, in some cases, such as this, where the service attempts. Thus, had it been necessary to consider complaint is so ambiguous and vague “that its true substance, them, defendant's motions pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), (4) and if any, is well disguised,” dismissal is proper. Salahuddin, (5) would have been denied. 861 F.2d at 42. Normally, upon dismissal pursuant to Rule 8, the court grants leave to amend the complaint, id., and so, III. CONCLUSION the complaint is dismissed without prejudice and plaintiff is In conclusion, the court grants dismissal of plaintiff's granted 45 days to file an amended complaint which complies complaint for failure to comply with the requirements of with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and grants the plaintiff 45 days to file an amended complaint. In reaching this conclusion, the *17 B. Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12(b) court finds it unnecessary to address defendants' motion The court's dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 8 for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b) precludes the need to examine defendant's other grounds for (4), 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6), but informs the plaintiff that her dismissal. Nevertheless, the court notes that the defendant's amended complaint and service thereof must avoid the errors motion to dismiss for failure to properly serve under Rule listed in Rule 12(b) and must comply with the Federal Rules 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5), and for lack of jurisdiction over of Civil Procedure in all other ways. the person under Rule 12(b)(2), would properly be denied. Defendant claims that service was improper because the IT IS SO ORDERED. papers served did not include a complaint and because plaintiff first served Harter, Secrest & Emery who is not All Citations representing the defendant in this action. While plaintiff's service on the law firm was improper, she did properly 162 F.R.D. 15, 33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 341 serve the defendant in her second service attempt on March 9, 1995 and defendant accepted this service by executing End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.