The Federal Necessity to Plead Plausibly

 According to the Supreme Court opinions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662 (2009), an acceptable civil complaint must meet the following requirements to satisfy the pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2):

1. Factual Allegations:

a. The complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face (Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

b. A claim is plausible when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct (Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

c. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, are insufficient (Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

d. Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the presumption of truth (Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681).

2. Plausibility:

a. A complaint must allege more than a "sheer possibility" that a defendant has acted unlawfully (Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

b. If the well-pleaded facts are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, but do not permit the court to infer more than a mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has not shown entitlement to relief (Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).

c. The plausibility standard requires "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do" (Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

d. The court must consider the factual allegations in the complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief (Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681).

3. Context and Common Sense:

a. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense (Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).

b. The court should consider the complaint in its entirety, including any "more likely explanations" for the alleged behavior (Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681-682).

4. Supervisory Liability:

a. In a Bivens action (or a § 1983 suit), a government official's liability arises from their own misconduct, not based on a theory of respondeat superior (Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677).

b. To establish supervisory liability, the complaint must plausibly allege that the supervisor acted with a discriminatory purpose, not just knowledge or acquiescence in the discriminatory conduct of subordinates (Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677).

In summary, the Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal established a plausibility pleading standard that requires a complaint to allege sufficient factual matter, taken as true, to suggest an entitlement to relief. Conclusory statements and bare recitals of elements are insufficient. The complaint must contain factual allegations that allow the court to draw a reasonable inference of the defendant's liability based on judicial experience and common sense.

Many, but not all, state courts have fallen in line with Twombly and Iqbal. 

" . . . . Nevada hasn't adopted the Twombly/Iqbal doctrine, at least not yet. As things stand, our rules of civil procedure take the opposite approach and are designed to be "rigorous" rather than discretionary, weeding out at the pleading stage only those cases in which it is clear "beyond a doubt" that the plaintiff has no hope of recovery. Vacation Village, Inc. v. Hitachi America, Ltd., 110 Nev. 481, 484, 874 P.2d 744, 746 (1994)."

MG&S Enterprise, LLC v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America, No. 69622 (Nev. App. Sep. 29, 2017)