Plausibility Pleading (Iqbal/Twombly)

What It Is

Plausibility pleading is the standard for surviving a motion to dismiss. Under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), your complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Before Twombly, the standard was much lower: under Conley v. Gibson (1957), a complaint survived dismissal unless there was “no set of facts” that could support the claim. That’s gone.

What “Plausible” Means

A claim is plausible when you allege enough factual content to allow the court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

What doesn’t count:

• Legal conclusions — “Defendant violated my Fourth Amendment rights” (conclusion, not fact)
• Threadbare recitals — Restating the elements of a cause of action without factual support
• Conclusory statements — “Defendant acted with deliberate indifference” without describing what they actually did

What counts:

• Specific facts — “On December 4, 2023, Officer Smith grabbed plaintiff’s arm, twisted it behind his back, and slammed him into the patrol car hood while plaintiff stood with his hands raised”
• Who, what, when, where — Concrete allegations tied to specific people and events

Why It Matters for § 1983

Iqbal was itself a § 1983 case (technically a Bivens case, but same standard). The plausibility requirement hits § 1983 plaintiffs especially hard because:

1. You’re often pleading intent or knowledge (for conspiracy, deliberate indifference, or retaliation claims) — which are hard to plead with specificity before discovery
2. The court dismisses your case before you get access to the evidence you need to flesh out your allegations
3. Combined with qualified immunity, defendants can attack your complaint from multiple angles at the earliest stage

How to Survive

• Be specific: Names, dates, locations, actions. “Officer Smith” not “officers.” “December 4 at 3:15 PM” not “on or about December.”
• Allege facts, not conclusions: Describe what happened, not the legal label for it. Let the court draw the inference.
• Anticipate the elements: Know what each claim requires and make sure your factual allegations cover each element.
• Use the complaint as a narrative: Tell a coherent story. Courts are more likely to find plausibility in a complaint that reads like an account of real events.

Key Cases

• Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) — Plausibility standard replaces “no set of facts”
• Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) — Applied plausibility to § 1983/Bivens; legal conclusions get no presumption of truth