IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
July 23, 2007
RYAN P. CREWS. PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF MT. VERNON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; CHRIS DEICHMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF MT. VERNON; AND CHRIS MENDENALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF MT. VERNON, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
On July 11, 2007, the Court entered an Order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 47). In the Order, the Court utilized the Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 46-47 (1957) standard in denying the motion to dismiss. Recently, the Supreme Court determined that Conley's famous "no set of facts" phrase "has earned its retirement." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, -- U.S. --, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969 (May 21, 2007). According to the Supreme Court, the threshold pleading requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" in order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Id. at 974 (clarifying that a "heightened fact pleading of specifics" is not required)(emphasis added). In other words, the Supreme Court explained it was "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'" by providing "more than labels and conclusions," because "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . ." Id. at 1964-65 (alteration in original)(quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The plaintiff must plead factual allegations which show the right to relief exists beyond mere speculation by "rais[ing] a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence" to substantiate the plaintiff's claims. Id. at 1965 ("[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.'")(quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)(emphasis added)).
Following the Bell Atlantic standard, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint shows it is plausible that Plaintiff is entitled to relief on his claims against Defendants. Reviewing the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has plead sufficient facts to convince this Court that it is plausible that he may be entitled to relief on his claims. Therefore, the Court's prior ruling remains the same and the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David R Herndon United States District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.