Pearson-Iqbal: Responding to Comments

Thanks all for the helpful comments, and thanks especially to the DUI attorneys who seem so interested in the intersection between qualified immunity and pleading standard. (Joke.)

Before I wrap up discussing this article, I thought I’d respond to some comments I got throughout this series.

An early commenter posed the question of whether constitutional rights could be established by means other than § 1983 litigation, for example on habeas review or criminal appeals. The answer to this question is obviously yes — but only with regard to criminal law. And even then, many cases (for that matter, Saucier itself) arise out of underlying criminal cases. So at a minimum, this affects all civil rights claims that don’t arise out of underlying criminal cases, and those criminal cases that would otherwise be litigated by way of § 1983. (In subsequent posts, I discussed the race discrimination example. There are others: employment discrimination, free speech/press/religion claims, for example, and virtually all sorts of litigation that seeks injunctive relief, particularly structural injunctive relief. Probably none of these could be litigated if the only means of “clearly establishing” the law was by way of criminal appeals or habeas.)

The first commenter also raised Article III issues, namely, whether Saucier sequencing raises the problem of advisory opinions. Judge Leval on the Second Circuit has discussed this issue recently, essentially agreeing that there is a problem. Shortly before Pearson was decided, Sam Kamin wrote a persuasive article responding to the Article III concerns. I don't focus on those issues here; his article is a good one on that point.

Another, more "from-the-trenches" view, supporting Iqbal, came from a district court intern, who pointed out that Iqbal simply facilitates the dismissal of "claims that do not have merit". Let's just stipulate that frivolous lawsuits ("The president is spying on me and thus violating my constitutional rights") will be dismissed under any standard. Once those claims are bracketed, the point becomes question-begging. Recall that Rule 12(b)(6) motions are to be granted when the plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Let’s say you experience some really invidious racial discrimination. If you come into court with a lawsuit that says “I suffered really invidious racial discrimination”, you will lose on a motion to dismiss even though your claim “has merit”. The work that Iqbal does is to tell you how much detail you need to plead so as not to get thrown out of the courthouse, not whether your claim, as such, is meritorious.

And, as another commenter pointed out: yes, a lot of these criticisms apply to Twombly as well. The real issue with Iqbal, though, is that there was some confusion pre-Iqbal as to the applicability of Twombly. And, because Iqbal arose in the civil rights context, it is reasonable to expect it to have its greatest impact there.

4:43 on 3/16 and Craig’s exchange is a good one as well. It really illustrates the problem of identifying “clearly established” law. 4:43 suggests that, in the school discrimination context I cited, perhaps race and sex discrimination are different, and the problem I identify is illusory. But as Craig points out, the very fact that we don’t really know makes the law “not clearly established”, so the claim could easily get kicked. The only way to avoid that is to plead more generally, which leads to the interaction (Iqbal) problem.

Finally, in response to a commenter — no, I don’t know of any courts so far that have caught on to this. But I hope they do soon!

In my next post, and my last post on this article, I’ll wrap up with a few thoughts on “procedural judicial activism”.

Pearson-Iqbal: A discussion about discretion

In my last post, I explored a few of the problems with the interaction between Pearson and Iqbal: that a civil rights plaintiff is caught between saying too much (and getting dismissed because of Pearson) or not saying enough (and getting dismissed because of Iqbal); that, as I explained with the example from DiStiso v. Wolcott, this interaction could not only deter plaintiffs from arguing constitutional theories but also from enforcing constitutional rights; and that changing the Rule 8(a)(2) standard has also implicitly modified the substantive inquiry at "Saucier step one", even though the Court did not frame it that way.

I also noted that the increased discretion that courts are given (to decide which step of the QI analysis to undertake first, and to use "common sense") makes it hard to predict how different courts will deal with identical facts. In this post, I want to expand on the problematic way these two cases handle courts' discretion.

Pearson, as discussed earlier, gives courts the discretion to decide which step of the QI analysis to address first. (By the way, in response to Craig's earlier comment -- in FN 131 of the paper, I cite several cases where courts skipped to step two of the QI analysis and note that as of that writing (six months ago), courts had done so "dozens" of times; I suspect the number is higher now.) But while the case law now gives courts wider discretion to dismiss civil rights claims, they have no corresponding discretion to preserve such claims. In the article, I give an example where , at summary judgment, it is a close question whether a reasonable jury might conclude that there was a violation of a (clearly established) right. If a district court dismisses the claim, it will likely be protected by Pearson. But if it decides to let the case go to trial, it will probably have committed reversible error: although trial courts have various inherent powers, qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, not just liability, so the court will probably be held to have exceeded its discretion.

Moreover, litigants will not know which of the two steps a court will address first. Therefore, they will probably argue both. And, in responding to the arguments raised, a court may well address both arguments, even after disposing of the case on one prong or another. (The Tenth Circuit recently did this in a case I cite.) This in turn results in unnecessary dicta, which is the problem with Saucier sequencing that Pearson ostensibly fixes.

Iqbal also disrupts long-standing law regarding lower courts' discretion. As the Second Circuit explained in its Iqbal decision (Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2007)), a trial court, “not only may, but ‘must exercise its discretion in a way that protects the substance of the qualified immunity defense.’” Id. at 149. This discussion quoted Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597-98 (1998). Crawford-El explained that district courts have a wide array of tools at their disposal to carefully manage litigation and ensure that defendants -- and particularly government officials -- are not exposed to vexatious discovery and other litigation demands.

As the Supreme Court explained in Crawford-El, a trial court has the power, inter alia, to order a reply to the defendant’s answer per Rule 7 or require a more definite statement of the
plaintiff’s claims per Rule 12. “Thus, the [district] court may insist that the plaintiff put forward specific, nonconclusory factual allegations that establish improper motive causing cognizable injury in order to survive a prediscovery motion for dismissal or summary judgment.” Id. at 598. In Iqbal, the Court instructed that conclusory allegations must be disregarded altogether. Yet in Crawford-El, the Court specifically explained how trial judges were to use their discretion to more fully elaborate on such allegations in the course of testing a plaintiff's complaint. Iqbal makes no mention of Crawford-El, and therefore litigants must assume it is still good law, but there is no reasonable way to square the two decisions.

And this sort of carefully managed discovery process is nothing new. For years, courts have permitted plaintiffs to take limited jurisdictional discovery when there was a question as to whether personal jurisdiction existed in a particular forum. And consider this: Rule 9(b) imposes a heightened pleading requirement in certain cases. But the circuits were uniformly agreed, pre-Iqbal, that Rule 9(b)’s requirements were relaxed when the facts material to a fraud claim were in the defendant’s exclusive possession and could be obtained only through discovery. But it cannot now be the case that Rule 8's general allegations have to meet a higher standard than those that, per Rule 9, must be pled with particularity. Again, Iqbal makes no mention of this problem.

So Iqbal effectively rachets back district courts’ discretion, instructing them to dismiss a complaint outright when a complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations are deemed implausible. But it also expands district courts’ discretion in another, important direction: it instructs courts to make this decision based on their “judicial experience and common sense." The problem, of course, is that this kind of a determination is so open-ended as to be almost unreviewable.

So this is the second major problem with Pearson-Iqbal: all of the discretion cuts one way. Pearson’s rule that sequencing is now voluntary increases a court’s discretion to dismiss civil
rights claims; Iqbal’s conclusion that discovery management is an inadequate tool decreases a court’s ability to preserve civil rights claims; Iqbal’s directive to rely on common sense increases a court’s ability to dismiss such claims.

Of course, it is possible to devise a rule that would have balanced the interests of civil rights plaintiffs and defendants. For example, the Supreme Court could have (and I submit should have) announced the following rule, consistent with Twombly and pre-Twombly authority: (1) civil rights claims require no heightened pleading standard; (2) if the allegations regarding a particular defendant’s actions are “conclusory,” a court is to determine whether the claims against him are consistent with liability and, if so, whether the facts necessary to support such a claim are likely to be in the defendant’s possession. If so, the court could order limited discovery or use other procedural tools — as described in Crawford-El — to permit the plaintiff an opportunity to determine if he can make out a claim against the defendant. If so, the case would proceed in the normal course; if not, the case would be dismissed. Again, such a formulation preserves the defendant’s interest in avoiding discovery intended only to harass, while permitting the district court to operate with a scalpel rather than a mallet (and a rather one-dimensional mallet at that, since a court’s only option in such a context is dismissal).

We're getting to the end. Because this series has gone on for a while, I'll take a break in my next post and respond to some reader comments. I'll wrap up with a discussion of procedural judicial activism and why we should worry about it.

How Low Can the Pleadings Standard Go?

Recent legislation seeks to overturn the infamous Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal cases responsible for holding plaintiffs to a higher pleadings standard. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). Before Twombly, FRCP Rule 8 laid out a notice pleading standard which required a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief in order to give defendants fair notice. At the initial pleadings stage, the plaintiff had the burden of making factual allegations that, if true, stated a cause of action on which relief could be granted. Although the allegations needed to satisfy all elements of the claim, no evidence was required.

However, in Twombly, the Supreme Court created a plausibility standard establishing that a pleading must contain something more than a statement of facts that merely create a suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action. Revisiting Twombly in Iqbal, the Court rejected the theory that the heightened standard applied only to antitrust conspiracies, claiming that “Twombly expounded the pleading standard for ‘all civil actions.’” 129 S.Ct. at 1955. Supporters of these decisions believe that the heightened standard will reduce the amount of frivolous claims and avoid cases in which discovery is unlikely to reveal relevant evidence.

Well, Senator Arlen Specter begs to differ. Proposing the Notice Pleading Restoration Act, he is joined by several other officials in arguing that a higher pleadings standard simply favors defendants who succeed in concealing evidence, especially large corporations. As a result, courts are more likely to wrongly dismiss cases.

In certain respects, I do agree that the standard may be too high. First, it seems unfair to say that a meritorious case is always factually supported from the beginning. For instance, the plausibility standard is likely to be invoked is discrimination cases where the defendants will succeed on the basis of pure information asymmetry. Sometimes, the information necessary to meet the standard is in the hands of the defendants, and plaintiffs get caught in the catch 22 of needing discovery documents to solidify their claim while being stopped short of actually engaging in discovery. Also, I think that courts are able to impose certain limits on the discovery process to avoid the idea that it merely becomes a fishing expedition amounting to a waste of time and money. However, I think the major attack comes from the idea that lawyers, judges, plaintiffs and defendants alike have absolutely no idea what a plausibility standard actually entails. As a result, the Iqbal decision seems to imply that judges are left to decide right from the start whether the plaintiff is likely to have a meritorious claim, and without enough information, this decision can be construed as rather arbitrary.

I will say that, in reading about this new legislation, I was intrigued by the vast number of Twombly supporters who truly believe that the heightened standard will promote worthy claims, save resources, and encourage settlements. I know that I am instinctively uncomfortable with both Twombly and Iqbal, but I am open to being persuaded otherwise.