574 F.3d 820 (2nd Cir. 2009), 05-6352-cv, Iqbal v. Ashcroft
|Citation:||574 F.3d 820|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||Javaid IQBAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John ASHCROFT, former Attorney General of the United States, and Robert Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants-Appellants.[*]|
|Attorney:||Gregory G. Garre, Deputy Solicitor Gen., Dept. of Justice, Wash., DC (Peter D. Keisler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gregory G. Katsas, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Kannon K. Shanmugam, Asst. to the Solicitor Gen., Barbara L. Herwig, Robert M. Loeb, Dept. of Justice, Wash., DC; Dennis C. Barghaan, Richard W. Sp...|
|Judge Panel:||Before NEWMAN, CABRANES, and SACK, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||July 28, 2009|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Remanded from Supreme Court May 18, 2009.
Amended: July 29, 2009.
On May 18, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed and remanded a June 14, 2007 judgment of this Court, in
which we affirmed in part and reversed in part a September 27, 2005 order of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (John Gleeson, Judge). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1954, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 177 (2d Cir.2007); Elmaghraby v. Ashcroft, No. 04 CV 1409, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21434, 2005 WL 2375202 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2005). The Supreme Court held that, under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff Javaid Iqbal's complaint " has not ‘ nudged his claims' of invidious discrimination ‘ across the line from conceivable to plausible.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1951 (brackets omitted) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP