Pleading Issues in Prisoners Rights Litigation

1
Pleading Issues in Prisoners Rights Litigation

• Alex Reinert
• Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

2
I. Pleading Standards

• Iqbal and plausibility
• Iqbal and conclusory
• Preserve Seventh Amendment Argument
• Erickson still good law
• Interpretation of Iqbal is Evolving

3
Limiting Iqbals Reach

• Seventh Circuit Questioning whether Iqbal or
  Twombly applied in diversity suit for fraud, but
  dismissing for failure to state a claim. Smith
  v. Duffey, 2009 WL 2357872, 4 (7th Cir. 2009)
  (Posner, J.)
• N.D. Cal. District court held that allegations
  against John Yoo were specific and detailed
  enough to state a claim, even after Iqbal.
  Padilla v. Yoo, 2009 WL 1651273, 22-23 (N.D.
  Cal. 2009).

4
Limiting Iqbals Reach

• D. Mass. Finding that allegation supervisory
  liability for sexual abuse by guard of prisoners
  was sufficient to state claim after Iqbal. Chao
  v. Ballista, 2009 WL 1910954, 4-6
   (D.Mass.,2009)
• Notice pleading . . . remains the rule in
  federal courts.
• Nothing requires a plaintiff to prove her case
  in the pleadings.
• Reads Iqbal as grounded in concerns about 9/11
• Yet in keeping with Rule 8(a), a complaint
  should only be dismissed at the pleading stage
  where the allegations are so broad, and the
  alternative explanations so overwhelming, that
  the claims no longer appear plausible.

5
Expanding Iqbals Reach

• First Circuit Finding supervisory liability
  claim against Mayor insufficient under Iqbal
  because complaint did not allege a sufficient
  connection between Mayor and killing of household
  pets. Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263,
  268 (1st Cir. 2009)
• Second Circuit Dismissing due process claim in
  school disciplinary case because plaintiffs did
  not allege any facts to support actual bias or
  conflict of interest, other than their bald
  assertion that defendants were not impartial.
  Holmes v. Poskanzer, 2009 WL 2171326, 1-3 (2nd
  Cir.  2009)

6
Expanding Iqbals Reach

• Eleventh Circuit Finding claims insufficient
  under Alien Tort Claims Act, conspiracy, and
  TVPA. Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 2009 WL
  2431463, 3-4 (11th Cir. 2009)
• Similarly, unwarranted deductions of fact in a
  complaint are not admitted as true for the
  purpose of testing the sufficiency of plaintiff's
  allegations.
• Allegation that paramilitaries acted under color
  of law is conclusory.
• Allegation that paramilitary forces were in a
  symbiotic relationship and were assisted by
  Columbian government is conclusory.

7
Appellate Interpretations of Conclusory

• Generalized allegation that the Mayor planned,
  personally participated in, and executed the
  raids in concert with others, but the others are
  named as the persons with specific administrative
  responsibilities as to the public housing
  complexes. Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263,
  268 (1st Cir. 2009)
• Allegation that Wal-Mart exercised control over
  day-to-day employment is a conclusion, not a
  factual allegation stated with any specificity.
  Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677,
  683 (9th Cir. 2009).

8
District Court Interpretations of Conclusory

• Allegations become conclusory where they
  recite only the elements of the claim and, at the
  same time, the court's commonsense credits a far
  more likely inference from the available facts.
  Chao v. Ballista, 2009 WL 1910954, 4-6
   (D.Mass.,2009)
• Allegation that defendant had knowledge of the
  substandard medical care provided to inmates,
  but remained indifferent to the medical needs of
  inmates at the facility was factual. Estate of
  Allen ex rel. Wrightsman v. CCA of Tennessee,
  LLC, 2009 WL 2091002, 2-3  (S.D. Ind. 2009)
• Same court held that allegation that defendant
  was deliberately indifferent to medical needs
  was conclusory.

9
Interpretations of Plausibility

• A pleading need not exclude all alternative
  possibilities to be plausible. U.S. ex rel.
  Lusby v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 570 F.3d 849,
  854-855 (7th Cir. 2009)
• Claim is plausible even if it is possible that
  critical document did not exist, but dismissing
  NLRA claim on other grounds. Courie v. Alcoa
  Wheel Forged Products, 2009 WL 2497928, 2 (6th
  Cir. 2009)
• Exactly how implausible is implausible remains
  to be seen, as such a malleable standard will
  have to be worked out in practice.

10
Iqbal Bottom Line

• Two step process after Iqbal First, the
  factual and legal elements of a claim should be
  separated. The District Court must accept all of
  the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but
  may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a
  District Court must then determine whether the
  facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to
  show that the plaintiff has a plausible claim
  for relief. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 2009 WL
  2501662 (3rd Cir. 2009)
• So, what do we take away from Twombly, Erickson,
  and Iqbal? First, a plaintiff must provide notice
  to defendants of her claims. Second, courts must
  accept a plaintiff's factual allegations as true,
  but some factual allegations will be so sketchy
  or implausible that they fail to provide
  sufficient notice to defendants of the
  plaintiff's claim. Third, in considering the
  plaintiff's factual allegations, courts should
  not accept as adequate abstract recitations of
  the elements of a cause of action or conclusory
  legal statements. Brooks v. Ross, 2009 WL
  2535731, 4 -6 (7th Cir. 2009)

11
II. Meaning of Iqbal in Supervisory Claims

• Majoritys Language
• Supervisory liability a misnomer
• Government official liable only for own
  misconduct
• But official can be liable for violations
  arising from his or her superintendent
  responsibilities.
• Justice Souters characterization
• Supervisory liability is dead
• Viability of standards for supervisory liability
  that do not require purpose
• Lower courts are still digesting this

12
Iqbal and Supervisory Liability

• District court in California has continued to
  apply the Ninth Circuit s test of setting in
  motion a series of acts by others which the actor
  knows or reasonably should know would cause
  others to inflict the constitutional injury.
  Guillory v. Tilton, 2009 WL 2436687, 2 (E.D.
  Cal. 2009)
• In dicta, district court in Georgia adopted
  Justice Souters view of Iqbal. Russell v.
  Douglas County, 2009 WL 2240387, 1 n.2 (N.D. Ga.
  2009)
• Indiana district court applied Seventh Circuits
  knowledge and approval standard of liability
  for supervisors. Estate of Allen ex rel.
  Wrightsman v. CCA of Tennessee, LLC, 2009 WL
  2091002, 2-3 (S.D. Ind. 2009).
• Judge in SDNY held that Iqbal abrogates several
  of the Second Circuits standards for supervisory
  liability, leaving only the first and part of
  the third Colon categories direct participation
  in the alleged constitutional violation creation
  of a policy or custom under which
  unconstitutional practices occurred. Bellamy v.
  Mount Vernon Hosp., 2009 WL 1835939, 6 (S.D.N.Y.
  2009) (Scheindlin, J.)
• Some lower courts have limited Iqbal to
  intent-based claims.