presented, which legal arguments are going to be made, what evidence should be gathered and presented, and how the evidence is going to be introduced to the Court. The trial judge does not make these decisions, they normally take no action unless a party specifically requests it. The trial judge has the duty to exercise ultimate supervisory authority of the entire processes. On the flip side, the inquisitorial system has the trial judge take control over the process and the lawyers have far less control. Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Supreme Court 2009) Background: In the aftermath of September 11th, the FBI arrested thousands of Arab Muslim men as part of its investigation into the attacks. One of these men, Javaid Iqbal, was classified as being a "high interest" detainee at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. Iqbal claims that during his detention he was segregated from the rest of the prison population and mistreated in several ways, including confinement to a cell for 23 hours a day where he had blinding light shone on him constantly and air conditioning pumped into the cell even during the winter months. After being released, Iqbal brought a suit against representatives of the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, and FBI alleging 21 violations of his statutory and constitutional rights based on his treatment while confined. These defendants argued that they should be protected from the suit in their official governmental roles through qualified immunity. Reasoning : The complaint posits that petitioners “each knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject” respondent to harsh conditions of confinement “as a matter of policy…for no legitimate penological interest.” The Court considered the application of Twombly. It concluded that that case called for a “flexible ‘plausibility standard,’ which obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render a claim plausible. The court found that petitioners’ appeal did not present one of “those contexts” requiring amplification. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Conclusion : “Respondent’s complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination against petitioners.” Riley v. Willis (Florida Court of Appeals 1991) SEC v. Ginsburg (US Court of Appeals, 2004) Oxford Health Care Plans LLC v. Sutter (Supreme Court, 2013) Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1965) Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (Supreme Court, 1978)
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 10 pages?
- Spring '08
- Law, Trial court